SOURCE: AFI
Following its military setbacks during the May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, dubbed Operation Sindoor, Pakistan is reevaluating its air defense strategy, with a keen interest in acquiring Turkey’s advanced Siper air defense systems (Siper-1 and Siper-2). However, financial constraints, exacerbated by Pakistan’s reliance on international loans, may be driving the country toward the Chinese HQ-19 missile defense system, which boasts robust ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities.
Despite claims of superior performance for the HQ-19, skepticism lingers due to the underwhelming track record of Pakistan’s existing Chinese-supplied HQ-16 and HQ-9 systems during the recent conflict. This article explores Pakistan’s strategic shift, the challenges of integrating new systems, and the implications for regional security dynamics.
On May 7, 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor in response to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. Indian forces conducted precision strikes on terrorist infrastructure and key Pakistani airbases, including Noor Khan and Rahimyar Khan, using stealthy SCALP missiles, loitering munitions, and Israeli-made Harpy drones. Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied HQ-16 and HQ-9 air defense systems, integral to its Comprehensive Layered Integrated Air Defence (CLIAD) framework, failed to detect or intercept these attacks. Indian electronic warfare (EW) tactics, including radar jamming, rendered these systems ineffective, exposing critical vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s air defense architecture.
The HQ-16, with a range of 40–70 km, and the HQ-9P, customized for Pakistan with a range of 125 km (extendable to 250 km in the HQ-9BE variant), were marketed as capable of countering aircraft, cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles. However, their inability to track low-altitude threats or resist Indian EW measures led to significant losses, including the destruction of an HQ-9 battery in Lahore. This failure has eroded confidence in Chinese systems, prompting Pakistan to explore alternatives like Turkey’s Siper while simultaneously considering the HQ-19 due to economic pressures.
Pakistan’s interest in Turkey’s Siper-1 and Siper-2 air defense systems reflects a desire to diversify its defense partnerships and acquire technology better suited to counter India’s advanced tactics. Developed by Turkey’s ASELSAN, Roketsan, and TÜB?TAK SAGE, the Siper systems are designed to provide robust protection against a range of aerial threats, including stealth aircraft, drones, and missiles, with enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures.
- Siper-1: Already operational, Siper-1 can engage targets at 70 km with its Block 1 guided missile. Its advanced radar and guidance systems are designed to counter jamming, offering a significant upgrade over the HQ-16’s capabilities. The system’s flexibility makes it suitable for protecting key installations like airbases and urban centers.
- Siper-2: Currently in testing, Siper-2 is expected to enter service with the Turkish Air Force by 2026, boasting an engagement range of 150 km. This places it in direct competition with the HQ-9, with added features to counter stealth and jamming threats, making it a potential game-changer for Pakistan’s air defense needs.
The Siper systems’ appeal lies in their proven performance and Turkey’s growing reputation as a reliable defense partner. Unlike Chinese systems, which faced criticism for poor operator training and integration issues in Pakistan, Siper offers a NATO-compatible framework that could enhance interoperability with Western technology. Posts on X highlight Pakistan’s interest in Siper-2 alongside the HQ-19, reflecting a dual-track approach to bolster air defenses. However, integrating Siper into Pakistan’s CLIAD, which is heavily reliant on Chinese systems like the HQ-9, HQ-16, and LY-80, poses compatibility challenges. Transitioning to a new platform would require significant upgrades to command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) infrastructure, as well as retraining personnel.
Pakistan’s economic woes, compounded by a strained defense budget and reliance on International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans, present a significant hurdle to acquiring Siper systems. The country’s tax-to-GDP ratio has plummeted from 13% in 2018 to 9.2% in 2023, while defense spending has increased, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability. India’s opposition to a recent $800 million Asian Development Bank (ADB) loan and a $1 billion IMF disbursement, citing Pakistan’s misuse of funds for military purposes and terrorism, has further tightened financial constraints. Moody’s has warned that escalating tensions with India could derail Pakistan’s fragile economic recovery, straining foreign reserves and complicating debt obligations.
These financial pressures make the Chinese HQ-19 an attractive fallback option. The HQ-19, often compared to the U.S. THAAD system, is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their midcourse and terminal phases, with a range of up to 3,000 km and interception altitudes of 70–150 km. It can counter India’s BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, Agni-series ballistic missiles, and potentially hypersonic threats, offering Pakistan a strategic shield against India’s growing missile inventory. Developed by the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, the HQ-19 uses a hit-to-kill interception method, supported by a powerful Type 610A radar with a 4,000 km detection range. Its road-mobile 8×8 transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) enhances deployment flexibility, critical for Pakistan’s eastern border defenses.
Pakistani interest in the HQ-19, with claims that it could be deployed to protect key airbases and cities like Rawalpindi and Islamabad within a few years. Some users describe it as a “game-changer” for its anti-ballistic and anti-satellite capabilities, though these claims echo the overstated confidence previously placed in the HQ-16 and HQ-9. However, integrating the HQ-19 requires substantial investments in C4ISR upgrades, secure data networks, and operator training, mirroring the challenges of adopting Siper. Moreover, China’s attribution of HQ-16 and HQ-9 failures to Pakistani operational deficiencies has strained trust, raising doubts about the HQ-19’s real-world performance.
The HQ-19’s touted BMD capabilities are impressive on paper, but the poor performance of the HQ-16 and HQ-9 during Operation Sindoor casts a shadow over China’s claims. The HQ-16 and HQ-9 were incapacitated by Indian EW tactics, failing to track or intercept low-flying SCALP missiles and drones. Reports indicate that Indian strikes neutralized HQ-9 systems in Lahore and Sialkot, exposing vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s air defense network. Chinese sources have blamed Pakistan’s inadequate training and integration, but this does little to inspire confidence in the HQ-19, which shares technological lineage with the HQ-9.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.