Recently the Pakistani Defence Minister was quoted saying that our SAM systems are only operable within 30000 feet. This has raised alarm bells within the Pakistani public who for a very long time had assumed that their defense was 'impregnable'. In light of our political and financial constraints it would be better to look for competent counter measures than amassing a large conventional force. I would therefore request all the PDF members to discuss and debate our air defense requirements. Any future orders currently in the pipeline should also be mentioned.

Correct me if i am mistaken, but i was under impression, that in modern day wars, the threat perciption is 20000 feet or less ?

In 1984, the PLA conducted a series of HQ-2 tests against the Tuqiang-3 guided target missile. According to reports, the HQ-2 and the Tuqiang-3 were launched approximately 100km apart and the HQ-2 SAMs were fired in “salvo shots” of two to three missiles per Tuqiang-3. Four out of five target missiles were shot down. In more tests the following year, the HQ-2 shot down seven out of eleven guided targets. In light of these two tests, the PLA expanded the HQ-2’s role to include anti-missile functions.
The modifications on the HQ-2 SAM began in 1973 to enhance the missile's low altitude target engaging and electronic countermeasure capabilities based on the experience of the Vietnam War. The firing tests of the HQ-2A were undertaken between 1978 and 1982, and the final design certification for batch production was issued in June 1984. The 144 modifications on the HQ-2A include increasing the horizontal firing angle to ±75° from the original ±55°; increasing the speed to 1,200 m/s from the original 1,150 m/s; increasing the G limit to 1.5G from the original 1G; adding optical/TV guidance system and improving the missile's electronic countermeasure capability.


http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hq2.asp

HQ-2s in islamabad

http://bp3.blogger.com/_0HCJq6B1wZA/Rm3EGZ...00-h/PAKHQ2.jpg

Politicans do a lot of talking. Assume we had missiles that could operate at 50,000 feet, they would have just said " they will bomb us from tends of thousands of miles away using ICBM, we cannot protect against that". there is no limit to excuses for cowards. The F-16 and the J-17 have an operating ceiling of 50,000 feet. The F-15 operates at 60,000 feet.

A typical bombing altitude is 20-30,000 feet. Remember the higher up you are, the nearer you have to get to the target to engage it.

Thats correct even i thought that his statement was a mere political gimmick but when one does conduct some research on our SAM systems it can easily be figured out that we do have some major loopholes!

Is it a fact that the Pak army does have HQ-2's or is it a mere suspicion?
Plus id suggest that we go for something in the league of the FT-2000's or the S-300....because according to sinodefence.com

"The second-stage of the HQ-2 missile is a large liquid rocket, which makes it inconvenient to be maintained and transported. Each missile is carried by a semi-trailer towed by a 6x6 truck, and needs to be loaded onto a fixed launcher before firing. The loading usually takes about 5 minutes but this really depends on the training and experience of missile operators."

So if u want to go for such a hassle then why go for a 60's technology when we have better options available?!

dont care such rubbish statements as they have to be feed by uncle sam. we have to care what the actual situation is at the moment. we can definetly trace USA fightes with newly saab awaacs system that we recently accuired. we can also hit them . we are working on our own sam otherwise in near future conflict china can provide us sams that can hit the target upto 90 kms

Sorry bro but your a bit naive we can fight anyday of the year with Uncle Sam but the fact is SAAB AW&C would be jammed in a similar way as the French exocit missles were jammed during the franklands war. You must realize these weapons would work best when they are used against somebody like india which has a russian inventory and isnt a NATO ally in case of USA/NATO they would just go to the supplier country and ask for jamming codes and what not and everything would become a flying duck in the air our Aim-120C5 armed F-16's wouldnt be even able to lock onto the likes of US and allied aircrafts.

When faced by US and NATO i agree with you in this regard that China is the best option may it be WVR/BVR missles or SAM's although the best Chinese SAM out there is the FT-2000/HQ-9 as it is called but i wish we could have defenc links with Russia S-400 would be a nightmare for NATO and US aircrafts its the fathr of all SAM's interms of tracking,detecting, range and lethality.

By and large iam in agreement with u but do u really think that jamming an AWACS these days is that easy?! plus exocets have been known to wreak havoc on naval vessels...the Brits lost one in the Falklands and the Americans had their own 'friendly fire' incident when an exocet hit their frigate and they couldn't even detect it properly untill it was too late but as far as anti ship stuff is concerned my vote goes to the Sunburn i just wish the NESCOM people could get their hands on a couple of Iranian ones and try to reverse engineer them or sth! anyways...sticking to the topic! Apart from the SPADA,FT-2000 or S-300's what other chinese or european options do we have?!

Brother Jammed interms of if the provider of the AW&C in our case SAAB of sweden give the jamming codes to the Americans the E-3C could Jam the SAAB AW&C like wise in the franklands war france gave the exocit codes and data to make them useless thats exactly what happened in franklands when the brists got their butts kicked in our case in a confortation with US/NATO forces we need tachnology which is not based on their own or esle they would counter it since they would know it inside and out because they made it in the 1st place we need SAM's build by China or Russia and w need an inventory which is half western and the other half can be chinese,Russian or self made.

ummmm jamming codes?? cant say much about it....if it was that easy im sure some of our planners would have taken it into consideration...wouldnt they?! yeah but the chinese themselves are experiencing problems with advanced SAM making!! is the FT-2000 arguably the best option we have?

Yes PAF did take that into consideration thats why PAF and China are working on sino-Pak AWACS as of right now our chinese friends are working on 3 AWACS projects out of those three project PAF is onboard two of them thats the solution to the problem i had informed you about before we need systems which west hasnt faced before and have no idea of their actual capability, JF-17, J-10, Jxx all these represent that along with Chinese AWACS, SAM's, Dedicated Jammers, missle and alot of other equiptment frankly F-16's and the erieye AW&C is an indian centric purchase where as JF-17, J-10 and alot of other goodies are equiptment that could serve well againt the indians as well as the west if they GOD forbid they attack us.

Jamming codes also relate to the frequencies on which the weapon works.
For example, if NATO knows the working frequency of S-300, then they will switch on that vary frequency and ultimately jam it by jamming pods since the frequencies will match thus S-300 will be missguided. I dont have complete information thats y i wont comment furture.

ummmm ok ok...so..that means...that if u get ur hands on the jamming codes of any of these modern SAM's they can be deemed potentially useless? and that would also mean that the Russians would protect those codes like their crowned jewels rite?! There was speculation that both Jamali and Musharraf had discussed the purchase of Mistral from the French a few years back..i wonder why that has got lost in time!!

Bingo you got it right, like wise for example if the Ameicans give frequencies/codes to the indians PAF F-16's radars wont be able to see indian fighter jets since the enemy jets wont show up on the F-16's radar making the F-16 completely blind of the enemies presence. Same thing is with SAM's.

what the....?!! that means that unless we develop competent jets with the Chinese we are virtually sitting ducks!!! n dude forget the Yanks...the Israeli's would be glad to do that job for them!! But then again Muslim States do possess fighters that are currently in the Indian inventory so we could get our hands on some frequencies ourselves..cant we?! if im not wrong the Chinese also have the SU-30's which India has...cant we get the same codes from them? if yes, then why is there such a huge fuss about the latest Indian aircraft...i mean if jamming is as simple as it sounds then why debate 'the F-16 v Mig29 or the JF-17 v SU-30' on PDF all the time???

BTW...any updates on whether the folks at NESCOM are into sth regarding modern SAM development?!

Brother countries that make such systems hold the entire Data countries who manufacture these jets originally have these secrets that can make the weapons useless what so ever weapon it might be China makes copies J-11B still uses Russian parts to an extend under licenece or TOT only Russia holds the key SU-30's data.

Can someone please clarify what anti-aircraft systems do we have?

Lol ive asked this question 100 times too..lets c if v can get an answer this year:P! btw i would request a detailed and credible info!!

Doesnt matter because at the end of the day if we cant use them whats the point, our airspace is violated everyday by US I really dont see why we are discussing SAMs when we cant use them.

With all due respect brother at one point and time you advocate to use them against the US on the other you advise us to buy 200 Vipers from them? strange isnt it, the best bet we have to take on US is Chinese jets + Russian SAM's namely S-400.

lol true bro!

We should forget about the S-400's for the time being!! Russians aint givin us #### since v are 'allies' in the 'war on terror'!

FIM-92 Stinger Low-Altitude Surface-to-Air Missile System
Mistral Low-Altitude Surface-to-Air Missile System
Crotale Low-Altitude Surface-to-Air missile System
Anza Mk-I/Mk-II
SA-2 'Guideline' Low-to-High Altitude Surface-to-Air Missile System
RBS 70 Air Defence Missile System
LY-60 Surface-to-Air Missile
SA-16 GIMLET Igla-1 9K310

FIM-92 Stinger Low-Altitude Surface-to-Air missile System

SPECIFICATIONS :

Missile
Type: 2 stage, low altitude
Length:
(missile) 1.52 m
Diameter:
(missile) 0.070 m
Wing span: 0.091 m
Weight:
(missile (at launch)) 10.1 kg
(launcher (plus missile)) 13.3 kg
(launcher (complete)) 15.7 kg
(battery coolant unit) 0.4 kg
(beltpack IFF system (including connecting lead)) 2.6 kg
(grip-stock) 2 kg
Propulsion: solid fuel ejector and dual-thrust boost/sustainer rocket motors
Guidance: FIM-92A passive IR homing; FIM-92B/C passive IR/UV homing
Warhead: 3 kg HE fragmentation with contact fuze
Max speed: M2.2
Max range: 8,000 m
Max effective range:
(FIM-92A) greater than 4,000 m
(FIM-92B/C) 4,800 m
Min effective range: 200 m
Max altitude:
(FIM-92A) 3,500 m
(FIM-92B/C) 3,800 m
Min altitude: effectively ground level
Launcher: man-portable single-round disposable with reusable grip-stock

Mistral Low-altitude Surface-to-Air Missile System

SPECIFICATIONS : Missile
Type: 2 stage, low altitude
Length:
(missile) 1.86 m
(container-launcher tube) 2 m
Diameter:
(missile) 0.0925 m
Wing span: 0.2 m
Weight:
(missile (launch)) 19 kg
(container-launcher (with missile)) 24 kg
Propulsion: solid fuel ejector rocket motor with solid fuel sustainer rocket motor
Guidance: infrared passive homing
Warhead: 3 kg HE fragmentation (1 kg HE) with contact and active laser proximity fuzes
Max speed: M2.5
Max effective range: 5,000-6,000 m depending upon target type
Min effective range: 300 m
Max altitude: 3,000 m
Min altitude: 5 m
Launchers: man-portable or vehicle-mounted single-round disposable, vehicle-mounted twin-round disposable

Crotale Low-altitude Surface-to-Air Missile System

SPECIFICATIONS :

R440 Missile
Length: 2.89 m
Diameter: 0.15 m
Wing span: 0.54 m
Launch weight: 84 kg
Propulsion: solid propellant rocket motor
Guidance: command control
Warhead: 15 kg HE fragmentation with contact and proximity fuzing Max speed: 750 m/s
Max effective range: see text
Min effective range: see text
Max effective altitude: 5,000-5,500 m (depending upon target velocity)
Min effective altitude: 15 m
Reload time: 2 min (full 4-round load)


Status : Production as required (over 250 ground systems, 25 naval systems and some 7,000 missiles by 1997). Pakistan 11 acquisition units and 23 missile batteries for Air force

Anza Mk-I and Mk-II



In 1989, at the Pakistan Day Joint Services parade in Rawalpindi the Pakistan Army displayed a number of locally modified, locally produced M113 APCs fitted with an air defence missile launcher/gun system on the rear decking.
The system combined the Anza (Lance) four-round hybrid launcher module with a twin 14.5 mm Type 75-1 heavy machine gun module. The gunner is seated within the confines of the APC to operate the system. Power operation is provided for both elevation and traverse of the combined mounting.
The vehicles at the parade were fitted with launcher tubes for the Anza Mk I passive infrared homing missile although the hybrid Anza module can also be used to mount the later Anza Mk II missile system. Locally built armoured cross-country chassis have also been produced with Anza four-round and Bofors single-round launcher systems.

SPECIFICATIONS :

Full details of the Anza Mk I and Mk II missiles are given in the Man-portable surface-to-air missile systems section earlier in this book.

Status : Production as required. In service with the Pakistan Army (four-round M113 APC and locally built armoured cross-country chassis version).

Anza Mk III self-propelled low-altitude surface-to-air missile system

Development/Description

The Dr A Q Khan Research Laboratories are believed to be developing the Anza Mk III missile system. This is reported to be a missile in the class of the Russian Strela (SA-9 `Gaskin'/SA-13 `Gopher') type system and may well incorporate transferred technology from friendly nations. No other details are available at present other than it will be a self-propelled system.

SA-2 'Guideline' Low- to-High Altitude Surface-to-Air Missile System


SPECIFICATIONS :

Missile
Type: two-stage low- to high-altitude
Length:
(SA-2a) 10.6 m
(SA-2b/c/e/f) 10.8 m
(SA-2d) 11.2 m
Diameter:
(booster) 0.65 m
(missile) 0.50 m
Max span:
(booster) 2.5 m
(missile) 1.7 m
Launch weight:
(SA-2a/b/c/f) 2,287 kg
(SA-2d/e) 2,450 kg
Propulsion: solid fuel booster with storable liquid fuel sustainer
rocket motor
Guidance: command type
Warhead:
(SA-2a/b/c/d/f) 195 kg HE fragmentation with proximity and/or command fuzing systems
(SA-2e) optional 295 kg HE fragmentation with proximity and/or command fuzing or 15 kT nuclear warhead with command fuzing system
Max speed: M3.5
Max effective range:
(SA-2a) 30,000 m
(SA-2b) 34,000 m
(SA-2c/d/e) 43,000 m
(SA-2f) 55,000 m
Min effective range:
(SA-2a) 8,000 m
(SA-2b) 10,000 m
(SA-2c) 9,300 m
(SA-2d/e) 7,000 m
(SA-2f) 6,000 m
Max effective altitude:
(SA-2a) 22,000 m
(SA-2b/c/d/e/f) 30,000 m
Min effective altitude:
(SA-2a) 3,000 m
(SA-2b) 500 m
(SA-2c/d/e) 400 m
(SA-2f) 100 m
Launcher: single rail semi-fixed trainable
Reload time: 12 min


Status : Pakistan has 12+ batteries, Air Force, HQ-2 version

RBS 70 Air Defence Missile System


In its basic configuration the RBS 70 comprises a tripod, sight and missile. In a complete system configuration several fire units can be connected to a surveillance radar enabling all C3I functions. A number of radar options with ready interface are available. And automatic threat evaluation is a part of the combat control at two separate levels.

On customer’s request Bofors Missiles will take full system responsibility whatever system configuration. If RBS 70 isn’t interfaced with a surveillance radar it can of course operate autonomously.

In the vehicle applications RBS 70 can easily be dismounted and used independently.

With a Clip-on Night Device, designated COND, the RBS 70 can operate 24 hours a day. A complete RBS 70 fire unit consisting of the weapon itself, COND and Battlefield Management Terminal (BMT) requires only batteries as power supply. No cooling gas is required.

The high system reliability with the latest missile is more than 0.93 verified by big customers as the Swedish and Norwegian Armed Forces. A recognised high system quality gives very low maintenance cost.

MISSILE MK 2

Missile Mk 2 operates with the most modern control method in missile guidance, the Linear Quadratic Method, based on the Kalman Theory. The missile’s shaped charge is surrounded by more than 3 000 tungsten pellets. The jet of the shaped charge can penetrate any aerial threat. And if the target is carrying armour the penetration will be followed immediately by a severe behind the armour effect. In some intercept situations the combined effect of shaped charge and tungsten pellets will cause a devastating effect. The laser operated proximity fuze is, like the rest of the system, unjammable.

LY-60 Surface-to-Air Missile

SPECIFICATIONS: Body length: 3.89 m
Body diameter: 0.208 m
Wingspan: 0.680 m
Body weight: 220 kg
Propulsion: Single stage solid rocket
Operating altitude: 0.03 ~ 12 Km
Operating range: 1 ~ 18 km
Speed: Mach 3

SA-16 GIMLET Igla-1 9K310



Specifications

Maximum Speed 2+ Mach
Effective Altitude 3,500 m
Effective Range 500 -- 5,000 m
Altitude 10-3500 m
Warhead HE 2kg
Guidance passive 2-color IR and
UV homing
Fuze Contact and graze
Kill Radius Unknown

Thanks a whole bunch Green Beret!

Also the Orelikan gun system in conjunction with skyguard radar is a potent platform!

Pakistan has estimated 200 Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannon GDF-002 units.
GDF-002 was Introduced in 1980. Improved Ferranti sight and digital data bus. The gun has 112 rounds ready and 126 in reserve (238 rounds total).

Point here to be noted is that although Anza was displayed mounted on a tracked chasis vehicle and may well be launched from this specification, where as the main concept is like the American Stinger, it's a shoulder launched weapon.

so rite now our best bet is the LY-60 rite?!

Pakistan has:
HQ-2, the Chinese version of the Russian SA-2 (range 7 to 34 km / altitude 32km),
the Chinese PL-9 (range 15km, altitude 4.5km),
the French Crotale (range 12km, altitude 5,5km) (with a Chinese equivalent in the form of HQ-7/7a a.k.a. FM-80/90 which has a 0.5 to 12km range (12km against slow target, 8.6km against fast target) / 0.3 to 5km altitude),
the Swedish RBS 70 (range 0.25 to 8 km/altitude 5km),
the French Mistral (range 0.5 to 6km / altitude 3km)
the American FIM-92 Stinger (range 4.8km, altitude 3.8km).
Anza Mk I (licensed copy of Chinese HN-5: range 0.5 to 4.4km / 2.5km altitude),
Anza II (licensed copy of the Chinese QW-1: range 0.5 to 5.5km / 4km altitude),
Anza Mk III (licensed copy of Chinese QW-2: range 0.5 to 6 km / 3.5km altitude)
(not going into older MANPADS like SA-7 Grail and FIM-43 RedEye)

So, lots of MANPADS and (Very) Short Range Air Defense Systems (V/SHORADS).
Mostly IRH, with the exception of Crotale and RBS-70.
The only MR-SAM being HQ-2.
No long range systems

Best thing in the short term would be:
- modernize HQ-2 to latest version or best possible standard (or replace by KS-1)
- modernize Crotale to latest version or best possible standard (or replace by latest HQ-7A)
- add a system in between HQ-2 and Crotale/HQ-7A.
- add a system above HQ-2

I was going to assume Pakistan would obtain a chinese system e.g. LY-60, which provides (marginally) longer range of 18 km / altitude 12km. As it happens, however, Pakistan is getting at least some Spada/Aspide 2000 systems (25km range), which I think is a better option than LY-90

While I acknowledge that there are better and longer ranged systems available above HQ-2, a good complement or even replacement might be the Chinese KS-1 (50 km range, 25km altitude).

Other than that, you end up with long range systems like the Chinese HQ-9 or Russian S-300. Possibly SAMP/T (land version Aster-30), with 50-100km range depending on target and altitude.

and we shall be getting the SPADA by?!

Well, it was evaluated in 2006 and ordered mid-2007. According to one article:

"Speaking here April 16 [2008], Chief Executive Antoine Bouvier said the deal for 10 batteries was worth 415 million euros ($656.56 million) over five years, adding that the contract was signed last August [2007]and put into force in February [2008]."
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=348...c=EUR&s=ALL

So, if this is the case, I'ld expect deliveries to be complete by 2012, 2013 at the latest.

Sidenote: the Aspide missile can/could also make a good combo with the twin 35mm Oerlikon guns controlled by Skyguard.

Sidenote: As for the Swedish RBS-23 BAMSE, while it entered service with the Swedish armed forces in 2005, the Swedish Government in September 2007 cut funding for the Bamse missile in the 2008 budget, putting the programme on hold.

There is alot of mention about aquiring the LY-60, I am certain this weapon is operational with at least Pakistan Navy.

Hoping surface-to-air missiles will keep your sky safe is laughable and a reactive way of thinking. No SAM network has ever gained air superiority. Pakistan should focus its ground air defence systems to low-altitude threats such as helicopters, cruise missiles and CAS aircrafts. It's the airforce's job to keep the skies safe and clear. Failing to do that, you won't last very long in a modern war anyway.

I would slightly disagree with u OP....for countries like Pakistan who for all sorts of reasons are greatly overwhelmed both qualitatively and quantitatively in terms of military hardware, sometimes we have to look at cheaper alternatives too!! Remember if you have an effective air to ground capability the enemy would think more than twice about attacking you...iam not saying that we should not concentrate on our Air Force..infact it should be out top most priority..but right now we need to buildup our SAM systems quickly and effectively...these things are much quicker and easier to get your hands on than...say...a J-10 even!!! So untill the time that the PAF gets its needs fulfilled we neeed to develop our SAM network and that too in large numberS!

Should be,
HQ-9 (High)
KS-1A(Medium)
Spada-2000(Low Medium)
LY-60(Low Medium)
Manpads(RBS-70 ,Anza series, Iglas(they bought from Ukraine),Stinger,Mistral

Keep Crotales and HQ-2s for important sites(Beijing Olympics HQ-7 batteries)
And LD-2000.
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8695/00...644753eiwr0.jpg

Now that gentlemen is a proper air cover.

Why dint we order some HQ-9s!! duh!!

we have a great missile program, so why aren't we trying to develop our own Surface to Air Missiles. Specially long range, because if we do that than we will have the ability to have them in big numbers. Having a very good air defense system will keep just about anyone from attacking or even making stupid irresponsible statements.

[quote name='m.a.baig' date='Jul 18 2008, 05:16 PM' post='1067742']
we have a great missile program, so why aren't we trying to develop our own Surface to Air Missiles. Specially long range, because if we do that than we will have the ability to have them in big numbers. Having a very good air defense system will keep just about anyone from attacking or even making stupid irresponsible statements.
[/quote

They are two completely different things!! Even China has struggled to master modern Russian SAM technology!! We are still learning!!

Ballistic and cruise missiles of the variety you are referring to are meant for use against relatively large stationary land targets. Guided missiles for use against manouvring air targets at various speeds, altitudes and distances are a whole different ball-game.

Having a mix of short, medium and long range batteries is good, but it's only meant as a precautionary measure. Our focus should lie on the offensive options such as improved and longer range cruise missiles. That too in huge quantities. It's better to destroy the enemy batteries before they even lauch their missiles. Once we get our AEW&C, J-10s, JF-17s and F-16s we can guard our skies more effectively. Defense shields are no way near effective and they're expensive.

Building a strong air defence system is much cheaper than trying to match the IAF's numerical (and in some cases qualitative) superiority!! I appreciate your idea about destroying Indian SAM's but for that we have to wait untill we achieve a clear cut qualitative edge over the Indians...it will take perhaps a few years or more...therefore it is essential that for our primary strategic objective i.e. the defence of Pakistan we must make an efficent SAM network!!