PAF SAM based Air Defense System - News, Discussion & Updates

[Michael]

Dual band MFR is nothing new. It has various naval applications. But for land based AD, this is unique.
Also, it says, it is a multi-mode radar incorporating search and tracking. So basically, even if the search radar is knocked out, it can perform all the functions independently.

This involves a technical issue.

Early HQ-16 series air defense systems (excluding the HQ-16F/FE variants) operated as rigidly integrated, closed systems. Although the missile launchers, radar detection and guidance units, and control systems were distributed across multiple vehicles, they functioned as a fixed, interdependent package; no single component could be dispensed with. Put simply, if any single unit were destroyed or disabled, the entire system would lose its operational effectiveness.

In contrast, the HQ-16F/FE employs a system-oriented design. It natively supports networked air defense operations and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) across different nodes. Although the system still consists of multiple vehicles, the individual units are not rigidly bound to or mutually dependent on one another. In other words, the missile can operate without relying on its own radar system; instead, it can function using target signals and mid-course guidance provided by other platforms within a larger system—such as AEW&C aircraft, UAVs, warships, or ground-based radars. At the same time, the missile's own radar system supports this larger network by providing target signals or mid-course guidance to missiles outside its immediate system.

In other words, when purchasing the HQ-16F/FE air defense missile, the radar system is an optional component rather than a mandatory, fixed element. Customers can purchase radar systems with better or worse performance, or even choose not to purchase the recommended radar system if their existing system is very mature and advanced. Naturally, this is subject to the requirement that the radar system be compatible with the missile system at the data level.

====================================

Within the PLA structure, the mission of countering ballistic missiles is primarily assigned to the PLAAF's air defense units. The PLAGF focuses mainly on organic air defense (accompanying maneuver forces) and point defense of military positions, rather than the air defense of strategic locations.
The HQ-16F air defense system provides the PLAGF with a capability to counter short-range ballistic missiles.

Although ongoing military reforms in China aim to achieve cross-service integration, this process is still underway. Data integration between PLAAF and PLAGF frontline units still requires traversing multiple levels of the command chain—a situation that is unacceptable for air defense systems, where timing is measured in seconds. Consequently, the PLAGF's HQ-16F systems are equipped with comprehensive radar suites. As internal military reforms evolve, the radar systems paired with these air defense missiles will likely become more compact, or may even be eliminated entirely in the future.

As for export customers, those purchasing the HQ-16FE air defense system can select their own radar configurations and are not bound by the PLAGF's setup.

 

[Afif]

For the reasons outlined earlier -
"routine" ops its rotating with 360 picture sits offset from site it is protecting.
Slows down for suspect tracks and stares them down.

TELS are sitting well out of the area of this thing with a VSHORAD protecting it.

The enemy is likely to use Scalp LO for detection delays and Brahmos to compress decision time for a ToT from multiple bearings.

That is where having 2 HQ-17AEs comes in that create the overlapping coverage for this system along with decoys.




Pakistan does not have the below fully implemented:

View attachment 216445

Bro, this is a very comprehensive and redundant set-up that PAF didn't have before. But now it is getting there.

However, I think the question in many people's mind is, are PAF AD units getting enough of HQ16FEs and HQ17AEs?

I am not asking for a specific number, but we know that PAF has at least a dozen major air bases to defend. And these high-end systems are fairly expensive.

 

[Oscar]

Bro, this is a very comprehensive and redundant set-up that PAF didn't have before. But now it is getting there.

However, I think the question in many people's mind is, are PAF AD units getting enough of HQ16FEs and HQ17AEs?

I am not asking for a specific number, but we know that PAF has at least a dozen major air bases to defend. And these high-end systems are fairly expensive.

I think regardless of enough or not
Focus is going to be at priority bases and those with high value assets.

At the end, Mianwali with its F-7s and Mirages may not be as critical as lets say Bholari.

However, the architecture I gave is just AI mix and match interpretation so in reality it may be perhaps less complex in some aspects and more so in others

 

[White Privilege]

For the reasons outlined earlier -
"routine" ops its rotating with 360 picture sits offset from site it is protecting.
Slows down for suspect tracks and stares them down.

TELS are sitting well out of the area of this thing with a VSHORAD protecting it.

The enemy is likely to use Scalp LO for detection delays and Brahmos to compress decision time for a ToT from multiple bearings.

That is where having 2 HQ-17AEs comes in that create the overlapping coverage for this system along with decoys.




Pakistan does not have the below fully implemented:

View attachment 216445

Pakistan will need it all. Hardened shelters, Passive/active spoofing, Software kill/hard kill AD and 'The Ghaibi imdaad'. It is important because any well placed hit taken will hurt us more than five we deal to the Indians.
First of all, harden all the large hangars/shelters, especially for AWACS. We cannot have all of these assets airborne all the time , whenever there is threat of air attack, and some would definitely be on the ground for maintenance. We cannot afford another Bholari like strike.
Secondly, reduce the radar/IR signature of our airbase. Map the bases extensively using surface search radar and then cover up all the structures to reduce their radar returns. Especially try to blend in the AWACS shelters with the surroundings so that a terminal seeker would not easily spot it against the background.
Third, install passive radar reflectors around/outside the base perimeter which permits a larger radar return to make a terminal seeker acquire that instead and divert away from the critical structures in the middle. Active spoofers should also be used like wise as chaff rockets cannot be used near an airbase due to FOD concerns, however they can be used at safe distance if they can still work to spoof the missiles from there.
Forth, now we may use active air defence as we can....

 

[Michael]

Pakistan will need it all. Hardened shelters, Passive/active spoofing, Software kill/hard kill AD and 'The Ghaibi imdaad'. It is important because any well placed hit taken will hurt us more than five we deal to the Indians.
First of all, harden all the large hangars/shelters, especially for AWACS. We cannot have all of these assets airborne all the time , whenever there is threat of air attack, and some would definitely be on the ground for maintenance. We cannot afford another Bholari like strike.
Secondly, reduce the radar/IR signature of our airbase. Map the bases extensively using surface search radar and then cover up all the structures to reduce their radar returns. Especially try to blend in the AWACS shelters with the surroundings so that a terminal seeker would not easily spot it against the background.
Third, install passive radar reflectors around/outside the base perimeter which permits a larger radar return to make a terminal seeker acquire that instead and divert away from the critical structures in the middle. Active spoofers should also be used like wise as chaff rockets cannot be used near an airbase due to FOD concerns, however they can be used at safe distance if they can still work to spoof the missiles from there.
Forth, now we may use active air defence as we can....

How long do you think it will take for Pakistan to achieve this goal?

What are you willing to sacrifice for this goal?

=======================

In 1996, during the Taiwan Strait Crisis, the United States sailed aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese people are extremely distressed.

We strongly urged the government to begin building China's own aircraft carriers so that we would no longer have to endure such humiliation.

However, we knew that China was very poor at the time, and an aircraft carrier program is incredibly costly. Consequently, the Chinese people spontaneously began making donations to the PLA. Some donated their life savings, while others sold off fixed assets to contribute... Many children even smashed open their piggy banks to donate every penny of their pocket money. We had but one goal: China had to have its own aircraft carrier! We refused to be humiliated again.

Eventually, the government was forced to shut down the donation channels and repeatedly appealed through the media for the public to stop donating, assuring everyone that the state was already taking action...

And so, we see the Chinese Navy as it stands today.

If Pakistani friends also wish to realize this dream of theirs, they might want to try this method.

 

[rafale]

For the reasons outlined earlier -
"routine" ops its rotating with 360 picture sits offset from site it is protecting.
Slows down for suspect tracks and stares them down.

TELS are sitting well out of the area of this thing with a VSHORAD protecting it.

The enemy is likely to use Scalp LO for detection delays and Brahmos to compress decision time for a ToT from multiple bearings.

That is where having 2 HQ-17AEs comes in that create the overlapping coverage for this system along with decoys.




Pakistan does not have the below fully implemented:

View attachment 216445

This is very dense coverage for a single air base, considering you might need similar setups for Army Strategic assets and bases and naval bases too, the procurement cost would be prohibitively high.....and I haven't even mentioned coverage for other critical, non-military assets such as Power Plants, Dams, Refineries, Ports etc.

 

[White Privilege]

How long do you think it will take for Pakistan to achieve this goal?

What are you willing to sacrifice for this goal?

=======================

In 1996, during the Taiwan Strait Crisis, the United States sailed aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese people are extremely distressed.

We strongly urged the government to begin building China's own aircraft carriers so that we would no longer have to endure such humiliation.

However, we knew that China was very poor at the time, and an aircraft carrier program is incredibly costly. Consequently, the Chinese people spontaneously began making donations to the PLA. Some donated their life savings, while others sold off fixed assets to contribute... Many children even smashed open their piggy banks to donate every penny of their pocket money. We had but one goal: China had to have its own aircraft carrier! We refused to be humiliated again.

Eventually, the government was forced to shut down the donation channels and repeatedly appealed through the media for the public to stop donating, assuring everyone that the state was already taking action...

And so, we see the Chinese Navy as it stands today.

If Pakistani friends also wish to realize this dream of theirs, they might want to try this method.

That is why I have listed the steps in priority order. The forth step is the most expensive, the title of the thread and reserved mostly for the most critical targets (like AWACS shelters). If we implement steps in this order we will be optimally prepared for the next round.