The Kashmir conflict 2025.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

If China finds itself needing SAMs, it can crank out thousands per month through vast automated gigafactories. As @Gloire_bb mentioned, GBAD does face very real challenges from certain types of munitions/attack profiles. This is unlike naval warfare, where seas are flat and seaskimming can get you at most within 30km of being detected (not to mention OTOH targetting nearly always being provided by aerial assets for high end naval surface groups). Autonomous aerial based AD is the future for air defense over land. Fleets of unmanned sensor nodes and interceptor nodes will be protecting Chinese cities, military sites, and critical infrastructure by the end of the decade. For the China, the tech to do so is already mature.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Your number for 670 is exactly identical to IISS. Most likely he got it from there as well.

It includes
legacy HQ-9 - 150
S-300 - 216
S-400 - 32
+
The numbers I mentioned before about hq-9B and hq-22.

In total it's 678 launchers.

Again, s-300 is too old, and because it's russian, likely cannot be integrated with New Chinese aerial assets to create a complete AD network. Same thing goes for s-400. HQ-9 legacy systems are probably as good as s-300 in terms of capabilities.

So, if we count only modern systems then China only has 150 hq9b and 130 hq-22.

As for hq-19, 26, 29 we have no numbers for those on IISS. Most likely they are in service in limited numbers or LRIP.

If J-10s can be linked to PAF Erieyes by Chengdu, why can't S-300s exchange data with PLA IADS? Is Russia particularly known for not allowing modifications of their electronic equipment or is it much easier to mod Swedish systems?

 

[defenceman]

Hi,
so how we calculate how many sam battery china in need, of cource you
can’t compare land mass of Russia with China and then USA who always
trying to have bases around the world and to protect those bases one need
a big number of these missiles with all the radars etc etc, so probably thats
also one of the reason for PLAAN to have multiple type 52/55 In the sea before
something can reach to their shores
thank you

 

[Randomuser]

Guess the takeaway is PK needs to buy more AD stuff. Nothing is perfect against missiles but there's no point letting India have such a large advantage. You could say PK also got the better out of this fight because it discovered it has a problem that isn't too complex to fix. This is opposed to India who probably needs to redo their entire Airforce strategy now. Better make use of this time.

Probably needs to invest more in drones and missiles to throw at India too.

 

[LCR34]

Guess the takeaway is PK needs to buy more AD stuff. Nothing is perfect against missiles but there's no point letting India have such a large advantage.

Probably needs to invest more in drones and missiles to throw at India too.

300 flying mopeds? at once?

 

[Neurosmith]

how many times do we need to tell you, please stop reading these nonsense unreliable reports. these clowns really have no idea.

China have way way more than 150 HQ-9B launchers and they also fielded C variant long back..

and you completely forgot other Chinese SAM systems.

HQ-22 - 4 tube
HQ-26 - 8 tube
HQ-19 (~ THAAD equivalent) - 6 tube
HQ-29 (~S-500/PL-19 Nudol) - 2 tube
PC-19/DN-3

The most comprehensive report on PLA SAM systems. please watch this.

as per his calculation..

Russia - 710 launchers
China - 670 launchers
USA - 480 Launchers

thanks @sequ

Where are you getting the info about the HQ-26 and HQ-29, apart from a few grainy satellite images that may it may not show a missile launcher? The designation and their type are certainly speculation at this point.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Chinese analysis. He notes that the Indian pilots were not poorly trained or cowardly, exact opposite of what the west says. They were shot down at low altitude. This shows that they were aggressively maneuvering, likely to avoid missile tracks, they had at least rudimentary situational awareness, and did not abandon the mission at the first sign of intercept.

As a comparison, note that during Vietnam, US F-4s would dump their strike munitions at the first sign of SAMs or Mig-21s.

Their problem was not the pilots, it was actually the technology.

 

[Wrought]

you seriously need to read more about China's anti-missile systems.. China have multi-layers air defense system and probably have highest density in the world.. further more HQ-9 doesn't even come in top 3 of China's top of the line SAM.

PLA SAM thread is waiting for you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan doesn't have enough batteries so saturation attacks will work. they only have two HQ-9 systems.. only two

Chinese IADS is far more sophisticated because it is up against a far stronger enemy. But in a hot conflict, is inevitable that some munitions will get through.

No defense is perfect, and the point of air defense is to ensure military assets remain functional or at least repairable. Not that every single incoming threat is intercepted. That's completely unrealistic and impossible for anyone to achieve. Even a defense as strong as Israel's with full US backing could not manage that against such a weak opponent as Iran.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A Chinese analysis. He notes that the Indian pilots were not poorly trained or cowardly, exact opposite of what the west says. They were shot down at low altitude. This shows that they were aggressively maneuvering, likely to avoid missile tracks, they had at least rudimentary situational awareness, and did not abandon the mission at the first sign of intercept.

As a comparison, note that during Vietnam, US F-4s would dump their strike munitions at the first sign of SAMs or Mig-21s.

Their problem was not the pilots, it was actually the technology.

Doctrine, though technology likely played a role as well. US sources as well as USAF have praised the skill of Indian pilots that have participated in joint exercises with the US. Indian pilots were even applauded for frequently beating USAF pilots in simulated combat exercises. The problem: every single exercise the IAF participated in excluded BVR. Likely IAF doctrine and pilot training overemphasized WVR maneuvers over BVR tactics. IAF pilots may very well be good at fighting the air battles of 30 years ago, but find themselves completely out of their depth in modern systems based BVR focused air combat. The other likely deficiency in IAF doctrine is relying on a platform centric approach to air combat, rather than a systems centric approach. Various IAF air and ground assets are in all likelihood poorly integrated, resulting in slow flow of information between various platforms, a lack of an integrated view of the battlespace, and ultimately poor situational awareness. The total absence of Indian AWACS (to which the IAF only has a very limited number of expensive, impossible to replace platforms) is a telling indicator to the backwardness of IAF doctrine. If utilized properly with AWACS support and by pilots and commanders well versed in modern air combat doctrine, the Rafale can be expected to perform on par with the J-10C (given the biggest advantage of the J-10C is its larger, more powerful, and more modern AESA).

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Guess the takeaway is PK needs to buy more AD stuff. Nothing is perfect against missiles but there's no point letting India have such a large advantage. You could say PK also got the better out of this fight because it discovered it has a problem that isn't too complex to fix. This is opposed to India who probably needs to redo their entire Airforce strategy now. Better make use of this time.

Probably needs to invest more in drones and missiles to throw at India too.

Investing in AD is a losing proposition against an adversary with x10 the military budget. It is far more cost effective to invest in drones, ballistic missiles, and rockets. Cheaper to be able to strike back than defend against saturation attacks.

And as I and many have said already, the best thing for Pakistan to invest in would be the economy. Focus on improving domestic stability, building up a manufacturing base, and wealth creation first before investing more into military. Economic investments will by far yield the greatest dividends in terms of Pakistan's security. Foreign enterprises and factories in Pakistani cities may prove far more effective at warding off Indian missile strikes than AD.