What's new

Analyzing Pakistan's need for effective Counter Stealth

Darth Vader

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
4,447
Reaction score
3
Country
Norway
Location
United Kingdom
Radar-system-400x238.jpg
by Faran Awais Butt
[Terminal X Analysis]

Before I begin, I would like to familiarize the readers with two acronyms which I would use throughout this article: Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) and Electronic Counter Counter Measure (ECCM).

ECM is something that intends to disturb the normal working of a radar and ECCM refers to the efforts to overcome ECM. Jamming of the radar by noise or deception were the most notable amongst the ECMs but today, the radars of the world are under the threat of an even more sinister technology which is in possession of a very few countries; this technology, known as 'stealth', makes the target invisible to the radar. Stealth technology has brought up a revolution in the field of ECMs and has exposed the ineffectiveness of thousands of radars all across the world. The stealth aircrafts diffract and/or scatter very low power electromagnetic radiations owning to its special geometry and highly absorbent material. It is essential for the ground-based radars to have the capabilities of ECCM against stealth technology.

ECMs can be both seen and unseen. After World War II, there has been a significant research work on radar technology but as it progressed, its countermeasures also started to develop. The purpose of ECM is to make the radar less capable of detecting targets, deceiving the system and hence making it dysfunctional. It prevents the enemy radar from detecting the object. In reaction to ECM, there developed another form of electronic warfare which was developed as a reaction to ECM, known as ECCM i.e. electronic counter counter-measures of radar systems.

Electronic warfare is something in which every nation is trying to gain superiority at. There has been a rapid increase in sophistication of weapons in order to tackle the hostility of threats. ECCM is purely reactionary, that is, it has been developed in response to observed threats. If the ECM effects are observed in a specific system, a solution must be developed especially for a country like Pakistan which is under immense threat of this technology both from the western border (US, NATO forces) and India on the east.

Although stealth aircraft are in use and possess many qualities which make them superior to other fighter jets, however there still exist limitations to this technology. Many such aircraft are unstable and require a high-integrity sophisticated flight control and a fly-by-wire control system. The Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the aircraft is a parameter which dictates the detectability of the target. The greater the RCS, the easier it would be for the radar to detect it. Below 900 MHz, the target cross section increases exponentially. However, there is increased return from undesirable clutters. Shaping requirements have negative effect on the aerodynamics of the aircraft and hence they cannot be flown without a fly-by-wire control system. Hence, radar designers can exploit these vulnerabilities better than a mono-static radar since the bi-static RCS can be quite different depending upon target scattering characteristics.

The dramatic incident that took place on 2nd May 2011 at Abbottabad caused a humiliating disgrace to Pakistan when the United States' “modified” Blackhawk helicopters did a violation by covertly doing an operation at a strategically important location in Pakistan.

The report states that the latest stealth technology was used by the choppers employed in the raid. Helicopters with such technology are undetectable by ordinary radars.

The reports revealed that all of Pakistan Air Force's radar systems and technical monitoring assets were fully functional on 2nd May and no lapses of vigilance occurred that night on the part of the institution. This implies that there was lack of technology which resulted in the radars being unable to identify the incoming targets. It is evident thus, that radars are of no use if they cannot detect a target owing to ECM, which once again brings us to the conclusion that there needs to be an effective introduction of ECCMs into the system.

There is a global trend of using monostatic radars i.e. radars which have the same antenna which acts both as a transmitter/receiver and a duplexer which separates the signal. On the other hand, a bistatic radar is one in which there is a separate transmitter/receiver and the distance of the receiver should be considerable to the distance between radar and target. This trend needs to be changed for all the possible stealth-affected countries like Pakistan.

Stealth-oriented structures usually do not reflect the incoming wave in the same direction, rather they are absorbed and also scattered in different directions away from the radar.

These locations can be covered by use of multiple receivers at various locations. Pakistan should look for bistatic or a multi-static radar systems which have separated transmitters and receivers and whose receivers are located at a location comparable to the target’s distance.

Russia’s Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics limited (HAL) are working on a project, 'Perspective Multi-role Fighter' (PMF), whose objective is to make Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA); these planes are expected to be in operation by 2015. India too, is working on autonomous unmanned combat air vehicles developed by the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) for the Air Force.

Having already unveiled the J-20 Chengdu stealth fighter in January 2011, China is the only country which is developing two separate stealth fighters. The US is developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in three versions; Russia is working on a single design, the 'PAK-FA', on which India is also collaborating. Separately, Japan is developing the ATD-X demonstrator.

Pakistan has a very fine air defence system against jamming techniques but there is a need to make efforts to overcome the threats of stealth. India has been working on stealth in collaboration with Russia where as Pakistan did not make any efforts to bring stealth technology to their system. Pakistan should seriously consider collaboration with China in the manufacturing of the 'Mighty Dragon' J-20.

Efforts should be made by Pakistan to bring affordable stealth capabilities to their system. Although it must be acknowledged that this can take a lot of time. Pakistan should instead make efforts to build or design the counter to stealth system. The best radar that Pakistan has is the American TPS-77 which is a phased array radar. Phased array radars have many transmit/receive modules and such radars are very good in countering different types of noise jamming and to some extent, deception jamming. It also has a great deal of graceful degradation and room for modification according to situation.

Active phased array radars should be deployed since in such systems, there is a separate transmit/receive module which can be modified to have varied polarization, bandwidth and even operating frequency. Pakistan should look to work on active phased array systems in the radar factories at Kamra. Pakistan should also look to utilize radars operating on the lower side of L band of radar on the borders. Since building a multi-static radar approach could be very costly, we can either use modified radar warning receivers on a temporary basis or build a low cost multi-static radar system indigenously.

The writer holds a Masters in Computer Engineering from the Lahore University of Management Sciences and is currently a lecturer at a renowned private university in Pakistan. His research work on "Radar ECCM Against Deception Jamming" has been filed in the US patent office, funded by HEC Pakistan. He is a member of Terminal X and serves as an advisor on technical defence affairs.

Read more: Terminal X
 
The writer suggests low frequency radars and radars with separate transmitter and receiver..

Helium balloons with radars flying at high altitudes might also do the trick...
 
Well stealth will ultimately be defeated as anti-stealth counter measures will leaf frog in technology and with the ascension of more heavier sophisticated cheaper drones replacing manned fighters, it will be the anti-stealth radar and other counter measures that will rein supreme. If a 5th gen AC can be detected, it won't be a 5th gen AC any more.
 
Problem with ground based radars,need a lot of power to even have any hope of detecting stealth aircraft.Once power is on,its very detectable by SEAD platforms,stealth's main advantage is it gets within lethal range of its delivery platforms before radar can pick it up.With increasing range of standoff air launched weapons,any radar that picks up an aircraft is also being picked up by other aircraft which is then launching its standoff ARM.Also ground radars.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Here diagram shows hook and bait SEAD tactics.

Israel used similar tactics against syrian air defence in bekka valley to destroy 19 SAM batteries iwth zero losses.USA use similar tactics along with apaches against IRAQ.
 
Problem with ground based radars,need a lot of power to even have any hope of detecting stealth aircraft.Once power is on,its very detectable by SEAD platforms,stealth's main advantage is it gets within lethal range of its delivery platforms before radar can pick it up.With increasing range of standoff air launched weapons,any radar that picks up an aircraft is also being picked up by other aircraft which is then launching its standoff ARM.Also ground radars.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Here diagram shows hook and bait SEAD tactics.

Israel used similar tactics against syrian air defence in bekka valley to destroy 19 SAM batteries iwth zero losses.USA use similar tactics along with apaches against IRAQ.

Most of Indo-Pak border consists of Plains rather than hills and mountains expect Kashmir reign……:oops:
 
Problem with ground based radars,need a lot of power to even have any hope of detecting stealth aircraft.Once power is on,its very detectable by SEAD platforms,stealth's main advantage is it gets within lethal range of its delivery platforms before radar can pick it up.With increasing range of standoff air launched weapons,any radar that picks up an aircraft is also being picked up by other aircraft which is then launching its standoff ARM.Also ground radars.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Here diagram shows hook and bait SEAD tactics.

Israel used similar tactics against syrian air defence in bekka valley to destroy 19 SAM batteries iwth zero losses.USA use similar tactics along with apaches against IRAQ.

Depends on terrain masking.. most of the terrain for attack patterns straight in from the border will have little or no masking available other than the horizon. This is the border area near the Punjab.. specifically an axis that might be used for a an anti-terror strike
nh-43-02a.jpg


As you can see, most of the relief is fairly flat.. and most peaks head around 100-200 feet. Moreover, where there are places for low flying and losing in ground clutter.. that is the best between the areas of Lahore and Islamabad.. even then.. the relief is as such that to be able to exploit the terrain would require flying in very hazardous terrain.. very low.. and would only provide cover for a short duration.

A place where such a tactic would work would be an attack via the Kashmir side.. where the Islamabad Margalla Hills surround a lot of sensitive installations.
 
Also fixed installations viewable from satellites are vulnerable to cruise missile strikes on both sides.
 
HQ-9 (all altitude) and FD2000 (for stealth) SAM can be solution :)
 
HQ-9 (all altitude) and FD2000 (for stealth) SAM can be solution :)

Yes we do have, the HQ-9/FT/D-2000s and PAF is very interested in HQ-18 and some other systems as part of an integrated air defense net. For medium range air defense PAF's new MBDA-SPADA 2000 and HQ-16s. For point defense, we rely on Oerlikon AAA with AHEAD rounds, and ANZA MKII/III/Mistral/RBS-70/FIM-92 Stinger MANPADs.

We will have a formidable integrated air dense net when coupled with Indeginous Raabta datalink. What we don't have is "Capability to detect stealth air craft".

@Oscar What happened to the VERA sensors we had?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes we do have, the HQ-9/FT/D-2000s and PAF is very interested in HQ-18 and some other systems as part of an integrated air defense net. For medium range air defense PAF's new MBDA-SPADA 2000 and HQ-16s. For point defense, we rely on Oerlikon AAA with AHEAD rounds, and ANZA MKII/III/Mistral/RBS-70/FIM-92 Stinger MANPADs.

We will have a formidable integrated air dense net when coupled with Indeginous Raabta datalink. What we don't have is "Capability to detect stealth air craft".

@Oscar What happened to the VERA sensors we had?

Bangladesh has little advantage, BD does not have much high and low altitude air defence requirement problem, BD almost flat :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A few more points on SEAD.

Something more i got.

Curvature of Earth & Meteorological Conditions-



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

For low flying targets, the radars have highly reduced range.

Engagement Profiles of Missiles-


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
There are limitations on the profiles (speed, altitude, range) the missiles can engage a target in. For example, direct head-on engagement of subsonic high flying target may be 100km, but for a receding target flying low, the range may be 10km.

Deployment of Air defence networks-
Note these depict extensive dedicated air defence networks .


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Density of AD network depends on terrain and strategic importance of targets.Successful modern Defence in depth usually requires Multiple type of SAMs networked.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
How integrated penetration of air defnce network works in SEAD/DEAD.As pointed above, it requires a combination of aircrafts, tactics, countermeasures and weapons to defeat modern air-defenses.Surprisingly usa used apaches very well in low level penetration.
 
i think it is general :undecided:

You need to have a principle threat,only then you assess its ability to inflict damage to your defenses in a way...only then you decide what suits your needs....only then you go and acquire those systems and training/tactics.

Pakistan is investing in a fire and forget, IADN and Electronic Warfare Ranges, because we have Rafales,MKIs and SMTs [4th Gen Fighters] to be kept at bay...then we have to maintain a potent flying wing to counter those threats on our terms. It should reduce the burden on PAF so it could focus on more advanced threats in the future ie PAK-FA/AMCA for which we will acquire a 5th generation platform, some time in the next 10-15 years.
 
India has terrain advantage in tibet area,chinese side is high and flat plateau,while indian side is much more rugged mountanous.This gives IAF aircraft serious advantage as IAF can more easily pick up chinese aircraft taking off and coming due to flat terrain but IAF aircraft can approach through terrain masking,giving much more hnace of tactical surprise.
On pakistani border i agree quite same on both sides.If its plains plains on both sides,if its mountains mountains on both sides.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom