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

".......
Hypersonic weapons come in two categories:

  • Hypersonic cruise missiles, which are powered by high-performance, air-breathing engines known as scramjets
  • Hypersonic boost-glide weapons, which comprise a maneuverable glide vehicle launched on a ballistic missile or rocket booster
Both types of weapons are notionally preprogrammed to fly to a specified target.

"When the enemy launches a booster stack, it's difficult to know if that warhead is going to follow a ballistic path or a hypersonic path," said Tyler.

With a traditional intercontinental ballistic missile, he explained, the warhead separates from its booster, then continues on a parabolic, gravity-driven trajectory to its target.

--------------------------------

1748771528879.png

By contrast, a hypersonic weapon separates from its booster after the peak of its trajectory, accelerates toward the Earth using gravity, then performs a pitch maneuver to begin a flatter trajectory called the glide phase."

The potential solutions would be the Cold launch 360 degrees kinetic hard kill i.e hitting a Bullet with a Bullet or Soft kills .

HQ-11 X 2.png

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

Like any other missile fired against an air target, CAMM is subject to the missile engineer’s ‘rule of thumb’ that it needs to be able to pull a maneuver involving five times the ‘g’ of any defensive manoeuvre executed by the target.

1748772607159.png

The resulting expenditure of energy by the missile will reduce its range to well below the safety distance used during missile trials. So that figure of over 25 km for the maximum range of CAMM represents a real-world value for a tactical engagement.

That said, a hostile aircraft unable or unwilling to conduct hard anti-missile manoeuvres might find it advisable to keep a slightly greater distance from a Sky Sabre battery."
 
Last edited:
My own assessment of the recent conflict is that Pakistan's HQ-9 batteries did well. The issue was Pakistan not having sufficient numbers deployed which resulted in some of the Scalp-EG, Brahmos munitions getting through.

Also, contrary to India, Pakistan did not employ LACMs because of the dual-use nature of these munitions. Next go around Babur

This was a major tactical error and poor decision making. Waves of Baburs should have gone in with the Fateh strikes, which would have overwhelmed Indian defences. There's no point pondering about duel use when your heartland is under assault. The Indians themselves were surprised at the lack of use of LACM by Pakistan.
 
look at missile design.Designed to intercept drones and at best low cost subsonic cruise missiles
Can't intercept prime weapons of enemy like Brahmos and Tactical Ballistic Missiles.

These low cost solutions should be locally produced.
I politely disagree. HQ-11’s primary design feature is not low costs-quite the contrary actually. Each individual interceptor, though having low diameters, comes with their own AESA ARH seekers, in stark contrast to other “low-cost” systems operated by PLA and PLAAF like HQ-22/FK-3 that maintained inexpensive SARH seekers despite larger missiles and improved kinematic performance.

From my understanding, HQ-11’s key descriptors should be independent, flexible, and resilient. One of the prominent feature that the HQ-11 have that is rarely seen in Chinese SAMs is this:
IMG_1701.jpeg
The system comes integrated with its own radar, a singular multi-purpose mechanically scanned AESA that can provide early warning and missile guidance, mounted on the TA450B chassis, which in PLA designation, is classified as a “special purpose vehicle” like chassis for truck howitzers and ballistic missile TELs, with stricter off-road and field mobility requirements compared to regular trucks.

To sum it up, the HQ-11 is a off-road capable vehicle; able to detect, acquire, and engage its own targets with minimal support units; with missiles capable of active homing to maximized firing channels (engaging as many targets simultaneously as possible); while carrying relatively numerous small-diameter missiles to ensure magazine depth, and able to operate in tandem with LD-3000 CIWS if that wasn’t enough.

A vehicle such as this is expected to be able to fulfill many roles, either as accompanying SAM coverage maneuvering with ground units, as supplementary reinforcements to other SAM batteries reacting to saturated attacks, or as a reactionary measure if other high value systems have been suppressed/damaged.

And no, there is currently no evidence that suggest that it wouldn’t be able to engage supersonic targets. We don’t know a lot about the kinematic performance of the missile actually.
 
Exactly, we are entering new era. Time to readjust NFC to provinces. Reduce army size.

Double the budget for PAF, Navy and rocket force. Start preparing for all out war now.

Suicidal considering you just have to look at the Russia/Ukraine war, where such standoff munitions are used on a daily basis yet capturing and holding land is done by troops, with Russia having the edge due to numbers.
 
This was a major tactical error and poor decision making. Waves of Baburs should have gone in with the Fateh strikes, which would have overwhelmed Indian defences. There's no point pondering about duel use when your heartland is under assault. The Indians themselves were surprised at the lack of use of LACM by Pakistan.

I think most Pakistanis understand that our May 10 response was more about shutting up the Pakistani public than actually harming India. Not in a million years will the Pakistani politicians ever cause any serious harm to India.

Nawaz was quiet as a mouse all those days and little brother Shehbaz would never do anything to harm the family businesses.
 
We have known about BrahMos since 2016 but we were caught with our pants down. We had no effective defence against them (most of them got through) and we did not have our own version to fire back at India.

Will we be prepared for BrahMos 2?

How will we target BrahMos 2 launch sites scattered throughout India on the far side of India?
I wouldn’t hold my breath for BrahMos 2.

AFAIK India does not even possess the basic infrastructure needed to study hypersonic aerodynamics for any universities or design institutes, left alone having any working prototypes or demonstrators for scramjet engines needed for a hypersonic cruise missile.

It may be called a BrahMos, but a true scramjet cruise missile would have nothing in common compared to the original Kh-61 ramjet design which all the current BrahMos variants we see is currently based off of. If anything, it would be an R&D research from the ground up…

Anyone suggesting that the BrahMos 2 would enter service any earlier than 2040 or even 2050 is pulling it out of their ass
 
My own assessment of the recent conflict is that Pakistan's HQ-9 batteries did well. The issue was Pakistan not having sufficient numbers deployed which resulted in some of the Scalp-EG, Brahmos munitions getting through.
Not sure if I missed this information or if it was ever officially revealed but do we know how many BrahMos were actually fired, and how many were intercepted successfully?

@Panzerkiel
 
CAMM is really good and almost a perfect gap filler but “may” bring issues of integrating in the overall IAD and cost maybe an issue too.

What is your opinion of HQ11/FM3000?
Integration i doubt will be a problem, all the assets are interlinked- tps77mrrs with hq-9s etc etc. Plus, if need be, CAMM can operate as a standalone sys paired to its other batteries or a network interface can be developed with the oem.

In terms of cost, in the bigger picture CAMM is the way forward IMO. Its a real shame and extremely infuriating the services did not adopt a common system. All 3 branches would have been extremely well served by camm, wed have probably been able to negotiate production facilities blah blah.

The reason why its important is really and truly, these Chinese systems are old. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, its still a pig. The missiles are derived from their soviet counterparts so suffer from the same limitations. The other aspect is, Chinas threat environment is SO different to ours. Their primary objective is the US, who does not deploy hypersonics extensively atm. But even more so, they have tons of depth so detection time is more reasonable. Even if China continued to modernise these missiles, they can free up a ton of space with new propellants electronics etc, but with their foe being the US, theyre probably packing in a ton of crazy advanced electronics, designed to face the US' EW might. Again, not an issue for us because the Indians havent really paid much heed to EW.

Beyond this, fundamentally, these missile systems are decades old. SAMs are a long term buy. At some point, the Chinese will lose interest in supporting these systems and then were buggered- we bought in so much, but did not setup any local supply chain to support these procurements, so if the Chinese lose interest, itll effectively be "deal with it".

In terms of cost, a $1m missile will be cheaper than losing a jet on the ground, or an aew etc. I also would be surprised if Chinese missiles are a ton cheaper. Im sure they are, but the disparity is probably not huge anyway considering they pull our pants down any chance they get.

When it comes to HQ-11, im opposed to us being beta testers for anyone. Particularly China. The reality is, we need to partner with those whos primary threat is the same one we face. So this narrows it down to Europe. We are effectively in the same position. Either them or Israel.

In terms of the actual missile, again, lets ignore ranges for a minute, just looking at the two missiles, you can see CAMM is alot more compact, likely alot more manuverable due to its TVC but also, post launch, its thrusters can position it perfectly for interception. The CAMM is an extremely, extremely capable missile and IMO is the perfect system for hypersonic interceptions. If we look at ranges, camm weighs 99kg and offers a 25km range, same as HQ-11, but CAMM is a far smaller, less draggy missile, designed likely to operate in lower parts of the atmosphere, unlike HQ-11 which is probably suited for flight in thinner air. What id actually propose is what the Euros did with Aster and what the Indians are doing with their domestic S400 variant.

Take camm, use it as the baseline for a family of missiles. CAMM for Shorad, CAMM-ER for MRSAM, CAMM with a booster for CAMM-LR. Either this, or buy into IRIS-T SL, of which the german have now developed SLM, SLX, another longer ranged variant and are even coming up with a HTK version for BMD... A full family of missile, bottom to the top.

Forget these Mix and Match Chinese systems, procured via closed bidding- its all very dodgy, i am heavily against any equipment procured without an evaluation process, no matter how well it fares, whether this is J-10c's or PL-15s.
 
Pakistan needs that system and this system also to take care of airbase defence and other important installations

this wont do anything. Brahmos even if intercepted by such a system would still put a base out of action. This is why countries are moving towards missile based CIWS Llike ESSM or CAMM
 
I wouldn’t hold my breath for BrahMos 2.

AFAIK India does not even possess the basic infrastructure needed to study hypersonic aerodynamics for any universities or design institutes, left alone having any working prototypes or demonstrators for scramjet engines needed for a hypersonic cruise missile.

It may be called a BrahMos, but a true scramjet cruise missile would have nothing in common compared to the original Kh-61 ramjet design which all the current BrahMos variants we see is currently based off of. If anything, it would be an R&D research from the ground up…

Anyone suggesting that the BrahMos 2 would enter service any earlier than 2040 or even 2050 is pulling it out of their ass
Maybe I'm being too anxious but it's far better to overestimate than underestimate your opponent. There's a tendency to downplay or ignore the enemy's capabilities amongst us (Pakistani) which I don't think is a good idea.

But I don't think what you are saying is entirely correct because the BrahMos 2 project is in collaboration with Russia which does have a strong R&D base and an existing hypersonic cruise missile itself.

It was also tested already in the video i linked, so I don't think it's something that should be ignored.
 
Hi,

Once air superiority had been managed---the rest is SEAd & DEAD mission---to which Paf had the opportunity and they should have contd. for at least 24 to maybe 36 hours---.

The S400 were taken out---that was the time to have continued & destroyed all the enemy anti air defenses and surface to surface missile sites---.

With most of the SA missile destroyed---the enemy would have gone into confusion as what to get---they would go out on a desperate shopping spree.

The SELLEING NATION would be thinking---do I want to sell my product to this nation and see failure of my equipment---.

Never in the known history of mankind---a weapons selling nation has faced this dilemma---. Should I sell it---should I not---what about my reputation if their enemy destroys it again---.

Pakistan needs to propagate this mantra--- sell to india---destroy your reputation and future sales---.
Absolutely agree with you -- once PAF had local air superiority and took out the S-400s, it should’ve immediately transitioned into full-spectrum SEAD & DEAD ops for the next 24–36 hours. Heck if it was Israel in Pakistan's position they would've done much worse. Pakistan needs that mindset.

Within the 200–300 km belt, they had a golden window to cripple India’s western military posture.

This could’ve included:

1. Precision strikes on IAF airbases (Adampur, Ambala, Bhatinda) to crater runways in a much more crippling manner and disable fuel/ammo storage.

2. Hitting radar systems and SAM sites (Akash, Spyder, QRSAM) using drones, glide bombs, and decoys.

3. Targeting Pralay and BrahMos missile TELs with loitering munitions.

4. Decapitating brigade/division HQs to disrupt command flow.

5. Destroying key logistical nodes to paralyse forward deployments.

Strategically, this wouldn't just delay IAF recovery -- it would send a message to arms exporters: "Sell to India, lose your credibility." That reputational blow would ripple across every future Indian procurement.
 
Last edited:
It seems the slant range is 45Km. High capacity multi-target engagement. Seems very similar in capability to CAAM.

View attachment 125084
Camm has a min intercept range below 1km, vs 2km for this, brahmos travels at 1km/s, losing valuable reaction time. It was very clear FM3000 would not be as agile or capable as CAMM from the get go IMO
 
, The existing Brahmos system, although very powerful in India's propaganda, has a very poor real launch success rate and hit accuracy. Although it is a cruise missile system, the real launch success rate and hit accuracy is lower than China's long-range MLRS.
2. As for the hypersonic version of Brahmos, it is just a propaganda slogan.
Not right.
 
The HQ-19 is a better fit against this. The other thing we need to do is work further on electronic warfare capabilities to jam, disable, change trajectory of those missiles when they are launched.

You have to assume that India having seen PAFs soft kill (ie EW based) capabilities will now work on trying to neutralise that capability, right? Make all CMs more resistant to soft-kills.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Latest Posts

Back
Top