What's new

Pakistan officially inducts HQ 9 Air Defence system

.
One question comes to mind.

This system is ground based; can it look above the clouds?
Is that a joke or real question?
Nerender Modi thinks radars cannot see through clouds.
That's why when IAF complained about bad weather when Modi jee ordered "Surgical strike " on Balakot, modi jee told the IAF to "Hide in the clouds " .
 
. . .

Unfortunately it is HQ-9 or HQ-9A not B,base on your pic 1.
HQ-9/9A:
HQ-9A.JPG
HQ-9.JPG


HQ-9BE:
HQ-9BE.jpg


HQ-9P:
HQ-9P.jpg
 
.
Is that a joke or real question?
Nerender Modi thinks radars cannot see through clouds.
That's why when IAF complained about bad weather when Modi jee ordered "Surgical strike " on Balakot, modi jee told the IAF to "Hide in the clouds " .
Seriously?

OK !

now put these after my question :woot: :partay: :rofl:
 
. .
The model is not accurate, just a representation.

I doubt China has produced HQ9A in a decade. This specific version is HQ9P, could might as well be a modified B version designed according to Pakistans requirements. Esp when you are talking about a long term system with 5-6 batteries.
 
.
USA buys other weapons not because it doesn't have enough quality and capability of it's own, it buys other weapons primarily to train it's Pilots and Military against the real thing they'd face in the future. Additionally, it buy one or more copies of these weapons to come up with Jamming, etc, against them. That's why in Syria, the S-400 hasn't produced even 5% of the results. S-400 on paper declares itself to be able to counter even Hypersonic weapons and high velocity supersonic missiles. I seriously doubt it.

Is Pakistan acquiring the HHQ-9 (naval version) also? How many batteries of HQ-9 are expected to be operational? I keep saying and will say again, Pakistan should acquire some SAM and a BVR missile and setup a new industry and produce it locally in large numbers (especially the SAM).

Exactly, USA and China both buy and try to get their hands on these weapons to evaluate and test.

If USA could buy Su-57 and S-400 they would absolutely love it! It doesn't mean they cannot make better things! That's my point.

China buying S-400 doesn't mean HQ-9 isn't good enough. They are very different missiles. S-400 is longer ranged than HQ-9B even. HQ-9 however operate using totally different radar and electronics than S-300 and S-400.

If S-400 can shoot down stealth fighters as claimed, I think many countries would buy a lot of S-400 but even China only bought a small order considering how much China usually produces and buys for actual use. For example if Su-35 was better than J-20 why does China make J-20 as fast as it can and not buy any more Su-35 and only buy 24 units? I was responding to the argument that China buys something means Chinese one is not as good. To counter it I made the point that USA would also love to buy Russian weapons if it can and honestly USA does. It stole Pantsirs, on the blackmarket bought may types of Migs in the past and even Kh-31 missile which USA then reverse engineered into a target missiles type for training.

S-400 to China is probably more important and useful than Su-35. Su-35 was a purchase back in 2010s when decision was made and original forming that decision was based on whether or not J-20 and J-11D programs work out well for single seat air superiority fighter. Back in 2010s when that decision was made, they didn't know how J-20 and J-11D would work out. It's always back up of back up of back up. Anyway S-400 I suspect is not like that and actually offer some more useful indication of what Russia's then best SAM system would be like and how useful it is. After all S-400 has 100km at least more claimed range than HQ-9B even assuming same measurement standards. No matter what this is still highly useful.

The fact that China then did not buy any more shows it doesn't actually work well against stealth as claimed. At least not to any more useful level than other systems.
 
.
Unlikely as France is one of the suppliers, they'll probably block it.

That said, the PAF could potentially acquire the CAMM-ER. It has the range (40+ km) to start building out the shorter-side of the PAF's HiMADS (i.e., the same role as the LY-80 in the Army) and complement the Spada-2000-Plus. If the PAF wants a long-range SAM, it could look at the HQ-9BE.

Why PaF, PA are looking for separate Air defence networks ? Why not a single air defence command which serve both PAF and PA needs and function on national level.
 
.
I am still doing my searching .... my preliminary findings indicates that this is not a version of HQ-9BE but export version of HQ-9 SAM (FD-2000)

Following line in press release of ISPR indicates about this possibility, specially if we keep the previous reports of negotiation in mind which started in 2015 as far as I remember, plz also note HQ-9B was not clear for export at that time
I suppose max range of 250KM is for AWACS , meanwhile it is lesser for fighter jets. ballistic missiles and especially for stealthy targets. However considering countries lesser strategic depth this should suffice high altitude/long range AD requirements.

The main areas of discussion should be anti stealth capabilities of radars accompanying the whole system and ability to tackle supersonic targets and in future up gradation to counter hyper sonic threats. It is my assumption that the system may have already been installed to defend all key cities/installations of country and is operational.
 
.
Iranian SAMs have been blasted to pieces by the Israeli/US airforce since the last decade in Syria/Iraq. When did Iran ever shoot down even 1 US/Israeli jet in the last 4 decades? dont fool yourself

Iranian airforce is obsolete with almost no BVR capable aircraft, except for the dozen F14 tomcats that still have to rely on 60s era Phoenix missiles :D

Iran has invested heavily in SAMS no doubt, but they have yet to be capable so far as to shoot a harmless drone down... Pakistan still relies mostly on its Fighter jets compared to its SAM systems. Even with the introduction of HQ9 batteries full focus will remain the PAF.

At the end of the day fighter jets have far too many hands up their sleaves against SAM systems. If SAMs were so effective then why do major powers still invest in their fighter jets? Everyone should follow the Irani model and just build SAMS with almost no airforce:D
Wars are fought by combination of weapons one cannot rely on single system, in case of Syria the air force is almost no where to be seen however their ground AD systems performed satisfactory especially now, they have intercepted so many Missiles despite superior jamming capabilities and modern tactics of adversaries. The SAMs installed in Syria are mostly of previous generation i.e S200. Pantsir. Buk and perhaps few batteries of S300 which are down graded versions, meanwhile the capabilities of Syrian air defense personnel may also be questionable. however now Russia in recent past has reportedly installed ground based EW systems which were able to deflect large number of Israeli missiles from their original targets. If capable SAMs are combined with jets and EW gadgets even then one cannot guarantee 100% countering of adversary missiles/jets.
Especially in case of Indo-Pak both can target each other due to terrain conditions especially with supersonic and near future hype sonic missiles with stealth features.
Why PaF, PA are looking for separate Air defence networks ? Why not a single air defence command which serve both PAF and PA needs and function on national level.
PAF SAMs so far are for specifically to protect PAF bases/installations specifically meanwhile Army air defense is there to protect whole country/civil installations also,
 
Last edited:
.
Last edited:
.
HQ9A has been discontinued for 3 years, China is unlikely to restart production lines.
If Pakistan buys HQ9A, there are only two possibilities. 1st, it's second-hand. 2nd, Pakistan bought HQ9A very early.
On lighter note with discounts and perhaps with some upgrades to make it effective. As it was stated in social media in recent past that HQ9 is much expensive system and is out of reach for Pakistan or China is reluctant to provide systems on discounted rates/long credit line basis.
 
.
On lighter note with discounts and perhaps with some upgrades to make it effective. As it was stated in social media in recent past that HQ9 is much expensive system and is out of reach for Pakistan or China is reluctant to provide systems on discounted rates/long credit line basis.
Generally, restarting a weapons production line is very expensive, I think that is much higher than the price difference between HQ9A and HQ9B.
So I think that Pakistan bought HQ9B.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom