The Kashmir conflict 2025.

Han Patriot said:

HQ9 is not meant to down cruise missiles, drones or ballstic missiles, it was meant to down jets. How are you going to down jets when the IAF went into hiding after the 5:0 incident. One HQ9 scored a SU30, another scored a S400 or Brahmos I think. That's what the Paks claim but judging from the exploded shape of the S400, I think it might have been downed.

Click to expand...

The smaller drones and Ballistic missiles are diffferent yes, but ordinary cruise missiles are slower flying, defenseless jets. There is no reason an interceptor that can down jets cannot down cruise missiles (unless of course its some LO cruise missile like Scalp, which complicates things).

Over all I found no indication that the HQ-9 underperformed; Pakistan just had too few of them.

siegecrossbow said:

Looks to be an extension of this, which comes from a retired PLAAF officer.

Click to expand...

I think the question of relevance is whether the user on Zhihu is the same person or not, because the Zhihu post (then posted on twitter) makes a bunch of more detailed claims about the nature of the aerial battle last week not present in the weibo post.

Essentially the question that we are interested in -- does the person on Zhihu have any sort of insider knowledge that should make us take their claims about the aerial battle last week seriously.... and if the answer is "don't know" or "no" then imo that basically tells us where we should put that Zhihu/twitter post.

The Su 30MKI that was downed was SB182 of 20 Sqn based Pune. Both crew survived. IIRC J10s got the Rafales and Su30, HIMAD got MiG29 and Heron.

Not sure we have seen this one before:



A different crash site:

Wrought said:

USAF has already used laser-guided rockets against drones, and PLAAF has plenty of rockets too. Cheap, effective, and small enough to be carried in large numbers.

Click to expand...

Lasers and microwave, are rockets really effective? Maybe manpad type?

T.C.P said:

The smaller drones and Ballistic missiles are diffferent yes, but ordinary cruise missiles are slower flying, defenseless jets. There is no reason an interceptor that can down jets cannot down cruise missiles (unless of course its some LO cruise missile like Scalp, which complicates things).

Click to expand...

As others have mentioned, traditional ballistic missiles follow high and predictable trajectory, whereas cruise missiles (not even "stealth" cruise missiles, first generation Tomahawks can do this) are maneuvering targets that also fly at very low altitudes to mask their presence from ground based radars by utilizing terrain (especially effective in mountainous terrain, which makes up half of Pakistan). Hence the best way to spot cruise missiles is via aerial radars, and even then most large SAMs struggle to hit targets at lower altitudes.

A great analysis on Paki current AD system & further improvement can be made. (Translated & slightly edited for better read)

Pakistan's current national air defense system still has weaknesses against low-altitude targets.

• Pakistan currently has 3-4 sets of HQ-9 (including old version HQ-9A), and 5-6 sets of HQ-16 air defense systems available, responsible for medium and long-range national air defense.
• However, for targets attacking from ultra-low altitudes, the detection range of ground-deployed AD radars is affected by the terrain obstruction of the earth's curvature, generally only 20-30km, and the area that can be protected is very limited. The interception capability is also limited if the distance is too close, and HQ-9's interception range of more than 100 kilometers cannot be brought into play.
• India is too close to Pakistan's various important targets, generally no more than 150 kilometers. If the BrahMos cruise missile is launched from the ground, it will reach the target in 5-6 minutes. Pakistan's fighters deployed on the ground will not have time to take off and participate in the interception operation. It takes at least 10-15 minutes from receiving the alarm to taking off and climbing.
• PLAAF advanced AEW&C aircrafts like KJ-500, have CEC cross datalink with advanced regional AD systems like HQ-9B/C, which supports target data sharing, and guides HQ-9B/C missiles to intercept low-altitude BVR targets, thereby breaking the limitations of the earth's curvature.
• However, Pakistan's ZDK03 and Saab 2000 AEW&C aircrafts don't have this capability. The export version HQ-9 purchased by Paki may not have this function, especially the old-fashioned HQ-9A.
• The option currently available to Pakistan is to purchase more advanced HQ-9B/C systems, allow them to conduct CEC cross-linking with the J10C and JF-17 B3 for shot-term use. Then upgrade AEW&C aircrafts with CEC function to ultimately fill the ultra-low-altitude national AD loopholes.
• Some may argue investing AD is less efficient & more expensive than investing strike missiles for offense. But there's a reason why small countrys like Israel invest heavily on air denfense. Like Israel, Pakistan also has no land depth, and its air bases rely heavily on AD capabilities to survive. If giving up defense when fighting India, J10C and JF-17 will suffer heavy losses on the ground, meanwhile India can put all its assets far away from border. On the contrary, India has very few BrahMos and Storm Shadow missiles in stock. There are only a few hundreds of BrahMos, and Storm Shadow relies solely on foreign purchases. India's missile production capacity is very limited, with an annual output of about 100 BrahMos. Therefore Strengthening air defense capabilities is very cost-effective.

Source: (By @万年炎帝 from Weibo)

I am more inclined to believe that PAF/PA for some reason, likely risk aversion, that did not employ their mid/long-range SAM systems to their maximum extend.

We did have visuals of successful interception, allegedly around PAF Rafiqui base (still trying to geo-locate this mosque, help appreciated). There are , may or may not be the same interception.

And interestingly enough, Rafiqui is among the bases claimed to be damaged by IAF but no proof provided so far (not included in IAF presser and not among the Maxar images purchased by Indian media NDTV, correct me if I am wrong).

If this is true then the base(s) where PAF/PA did decide to employ advanced AD seems to be protected.

Well does this mean PAF/PA did not deploy advanced AD systems around those attacked and damaged ones? Not necessarily. Some of those bases do host strategically important assets (AEW&C, nuclear weapons etc.) that Pakistan has a strong incentive to protect.

But why there seems to be no proof interception (no video of interception or attempts, no debris of intercepted missiles, no debris of SAM falling to the ground if missed)?

One theory I have is that PAF may already know the scale of the attack to be small (from available footages roughly 2 missiles per base) would not amount to significant damage if not intercepted. So they may opt to keep SAM systems cold to avoid revealing positions and later attract SEAD/DEAD strikes. Because these nominal strikes could be "warning shots" or could be bait for AD systems.

The relative scarcity of SAM systems in general, and especially long-range SAM forced PAF/PA to make sacrifices in order to preserve interceptors and systems themselves.

AndrewJ said:

A great analysis on Paki current AD system & further improvement can be made. (Translated & slightly edited for better read)

Pakistan's current national air defense system still has weaknesses against low-altitude targets.

• Pakistan currently has 3-4 sets of HQ-9 (including old version HQ-9A), and 5-6 sets of HQ-16 air defense systems available, responsible for medium and long-range national air defense.
• However, for targets attacking from ultra-low altitudes, the detection range of ground-deployed AD radars is affected by the terrain obstruction of the earth's curvature, generally only 20-30km, and the area that can be protected is very limited. The interception capability is also limited if the distance is too close, and HQ-9's interception range of more than 100 kilometers cannot be brought into play.
• India is too close to Pakistan's various important targets, generally no more than 150 kilometers. If the BrahMos cruise missile is launched from the ground, it will reach the target in 5-6 minutes. Pakistan's fighters deployed on the ground will not have time to take off and participate in the interception operation. It takes at least 10-15 minutes from receiving the alarm to taking off and climbing.
• PLAAF advanced AEW&C aircrafts like KJ-500, have CEC cross datalink with advanced regional AD systems like HQ-9B/C, which supports target data sharing, and guides HQ-9B/C missiles to intercept low-altitude BVR targets, thereby breaking the limitations of the earth's curvature.
• However, Pakistan's ZDK03 and Saab 2000 AEW&C aircrafts don't have this capability. The export version HQ-9 purchased by Paki may not have this function, especially the old-fashioned HQ-9A.
• The option currently available to Pakistan is to purchase more advanced HQ-9B/C systems, allow them to conduct CEC cross-linking with the J10C and JF-17 B3 for shot-term use. Then upgrade AEW&C aircrafts with CEC function to ultimately fill the ultra-low-altitude national AD loopholes.
• Some may argue investing AD is less efficient & more expensive than investing strike missiles for offense. But there's a reason why small countrys like Israel invest heavily on air denfense. Like Israel, Pakistan also has no land depth, and its air bases rely heavily on AD capabilities to survive. If giving up defense when fighting India, J10C and JF-17 will suffer heavy losses on the ground, meanwhile India can put all assets far away from border. On the contrary, India has very few BrahMos and Storm Shadow missiles in stock. There are only a few hundreds of BrahMos, and Storm Shadow relies solely on purchases. India's missile production capacity is very limited, with an annual output of about 100 BrahMos. Therefore Strengthening air defense capabilities is very cost-effective.

Source: (All by @万年炎帝 from Weibo)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yeah, 3-4 HQ-9 and 5-6 HQ-16 systems for an entire country is pretty abysmal. If the above source is authoritative, it confirms my speculation that much of Pakistan's AD capability is restricted by its mountainous terrain which in turn is an absolute goldmine for ground-hugging cruise missiles.

I've been hearing about this notional "HQ-9C" on this forum for quite some time. Does anyone have more information about it?

Also, does anyone know if any HQ-9 variants have active radar homing? Most sources I've come across state that the system uses SARH.

Maikeru said:

The Su 30MKI that was downed was SB102 of 20 Sqn based Pune. Both crew survived. IIRC J10s got the Rafales and Su30, HIMAD got MiG29 and Heron.

Not sure we have seen this one before:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A different crash site:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

These are all old footages unrelated to the current conflict.

1 & 2 are from the PAF Mirage accident in April
3 is likely from a prior IAF accident

Han Patriot said:

Lasers and microwave, are rockets really effective? Maybe manpad type?

Click to expand...