JY-27A radar spotted in Pakistan

[PanzerKiel]

Yes. However, I think the availability rate is 50% or 55%. Let's be generous and give them 60% - 270*0.6 = 162. There is also the issue of the WSO which I am not sure how to paint into a scenario.

In similar vein:
MiG-29 65*0.75 = 49
M-2000 51*0.8 = 40 (Mica penalty /2) = 20
Rafale 4 = 4

The M-2000 is hard to estimate as the Mica is outclassed and outranged, making them barely useful. Let's still give them useful equivalence of half their strength.

Rest of the junk is pretty useless and while the Bison has some use, due to 27th Feb they will not be used meaningfully (or so I think given 1965 event equivalence).

This brings their skirmish-able equivalence to 235 jets.

On the Pak side:

JF-17 - 122*0.85 = 104
F-16 - 76*0.8 = 61
Blk 3 - 25 = 25

PAF - 190

If there are sustained skirmishes, then pilot ratios will come into play and this would be to PAF's advantage. As you noted, quality of IAF pilots thins out after top tier, which may not be true to the same extent for PAF, in addition to PAF having a much better pilot to aircraft ratio (2.5 - 3 range ??)

Another thing being ignored is that these aircraft wont be coming all alone.

A basic, very basic strike package may have atleast 22 aircraft of ALL TYPES.

Standard formation may include atleast 4 jets for fighter sweep, then atleast 4 more for SEAD/ DEAD, then comes the main strike aircraft(4-12 or more), then 1-2 ECM aircraft, all covered by an AWACS, and all these protected by fighter escorts or dealing with enemy CAPs in AA role.

My point is, in the above hypothetical scenario, lets say if you dont have AWACs or some other specialist aircraft available, you may not like to launch a strike.

So once yu are calculating sorties, do try to calculate in terms of strike packages....air to air, air to ground, air against sea targets.....every package requires multitude of aircraft specializing in their distinct roles.

 

[Armchair]

Another thing being ignored is that these aircraft wont be coming all alone.

A basic, very basic strike package may have atleast 22 aircraft of ALL TYPES.

Standard formation may include atleast 4 jets for fighter sweep, then atleast 4 more for SEAD/ DEAD, then comes the main strike aircraft(4-12 or more), then 1-2 ECM aircraft, all covered by an AWACS, and all these protected by fighter escorts or dealing with enemy CAPs in AA role.

My point is, in the above hypothetical scenario, lets say if you dont have AWACs or some other specialist aircraft available, you may not like to launch a strike.

So once yu are calculating sorties, do try to calculate in terms of strike packages....air to air, air to ground, air against sea targets.....every package requires multitude of aircraft specializing in their distinct roles.

I think after initial tit for tat strikes like in 27th Feb, skirmishes, if they happen at all, will largely be air to air affairs, from standoff distances. And with EW and AWACs in full uniform.

This will then degenerate into armies on the ground going at each other, with more than artillery. As ground forces start getting to grips with each other, only then would SEAD and DEAD begin but be relatively few as the main focus will remain the a2a duel. Just my 0.02.

 

[gambit]

...the external weapons add to the RCS. However, it will increase the RCS of all the aircrafts. As MKI already have a huge RCS and having alot of external harpoints therefore, a loaded MKI will have much higher RCS than a loaded thunder.

Let us go to the extreme for now...

Airliners are large enough aircrafts to use in this discussion.

In the examples above, we can see on both the Boeing and the Lockheed where their engines are. The voltage spikes and the darker areas are the clues.

On the Boeing, the three engines are close enough together in the tail section that they are indistinguishable from each other. All three engines formed a cluster. Not so for the Lockheed, we can see the engines as represented by the large and dark areas on the wings.

From this extreme example, we can move the scale back to the aircrafts in discussion: MKI and JF-17. If we install a missile-like object on the airliner, most likely this object will disappear among the spikes. Simply put, even though the missile is an RCS contributor, its signal will literally be 'absorbed' by other signals. We can even be generous and say that destructive interference will cancel out the missile's RCS. On the other hand, constructive interference will make the overall RCS greater. We simply DO NOT KNOW. Precisely because we do not know that 'stealth' designs internalized their weapons. We do not want to take chances that constructive interference will occur. Best to go with the worst case scenario that constructive interference will always occur, so carry the weapons internally.

Missiles and bombs from all manufacturers will have similar dimensions and shapes based upon their yield designs. You can make a 250lb yield bomb the size of a train if you want, but why? So if we are to take the standard weapons load on the MKI and the JF-17, we will see that those bombs and missiles are pretty much similar in dimensions. They are already the same in shape, right?

Now we have to ask: Which is physically larger in terms of structural dimensions, the MKI or the JF-17?

Which aircraft is so large that bombs and missiles could electronically be 'absorbed' by other structures? We can be confident that a cluster of bombs/missiles will not be distinguishable on the airliner. But here we are talking about two aircrafts - MKI and JF-17 -- that have similar structural dimensions and structural array.

Dimension is wing tip to wing tip, for an example. Simple.

Array is more complex. It means wing shape and location on fuselage. Change the shape and there will be a different RCS. Put the wing higher on the fuselage and there will be a different aircraft RCS. Put the wing forward/aft on the fuselage and there will be a different aircraft RCS as well.

We know that the weapons locations are not significant variables on both aircrafts. Where else can we put them? So in terms of RCS, we know WHERE they will be: Wing tips, below the wings, and lower fuselage.

So does this mean that since the MKI already have a higher RCS due to being physically larger than the JF-17, a fully loaded MKI will have an even higher RCS value? Yes, we can be confident in that assumption.

However, and keep in mind that bombs and missiles are pretty much the same all over, weapons load on the smaller JF-17 may -- not definitive -- be more electronically distinguishable, like the engines on the Lockheed, thereby rendering the JF-17's smaller size irrelevant.

Radar detection algorithms will call a large cluster as a 'target', but if there is a cluster of smaller clusters, that will be classified as a 'target' as well. A fully loaded JF-17 may very well fall under this.

From my experience, given the CLOSING SPEED, the difference in sizes, fully weapons loaded or not, between the MKI and JF-17 is meaningless. the radar will process and see both at the same time and at the same distance.

 

[Armchair]

Let us go to the extreme for now...

Airliners are large enough aircrafts to use in this discussion.

In the examples above, we can see on both the Boeing and the Lockheed where their engines are. The voltage spikes and the darker areas are the clues.

On the Boeing, the three engines are close enough together in the tail section that they are indistinguishable from each other. All three engines formed a cluster. Not so for the Lockheed, we can see the engines as represented by the large and dark areas on the wings.

From this extreme example, we can move the scale back to the aircrafts in discussion: MKI and JF-17. If we install a missile-like object on the airliner, most likely this object will disappear among the spikes. Simply put, even though the missile is an RCS contributor, its signal will literally be 'absorbed' by other signals. We can even be generous and say that destructive interference will cancel out the missile's RCS. On the other hand, constructive interference will make the overall RCS greater. We simply DO NOT KNOW. Precisely because we do not know that 'stealth' designs internalized their weapons. We do not want to take chances that constructive interference will occur. Best to go with the worst case scenario that constructive interference will always occur, so carry the weapons internally.

Missiles and bombs from all manufacturers will have similar dimensions and shapes based upon their yield designs. You can make a 250lb yield bomb the size of a train if you want, but why? So if we are to take the standard weapons load on the MKI and the JF-17, we will see that those bombs and missiles are pretty much similar in dimensions. They are already the same in shape, right?

Now we have to ask: Which is physically larger in terms of structural dimensions, the MKI or the JF-17?

Which aircraft is so large that bombs and missiles could electronically be 'absorbed' by other structures? We can be confident that a cluster of bombs/missiles will not be distinguishable on the airliner. But here we are talking about two aircrafts - MKI and JF-17 -- that have similar structural dimensions and structural array.

Dimension is wing tip to wing tip, for an example. Simple.

Array is more complex. It means wing shape and location on fuselage. Change the shape and there will be a different RCS. Put the wing higher on the fuselage and there will be a different aircraft RCS. Put the wing forward/aft on the fuselage and there will be a different aircraft RCS as well.

We know that the weapons locations are not significant variables on both aircrafts. Where else can we put them? So in terms of RCS, we know WHERE they will be: Wing tips, below the wings, and lower fuselage.

So does this mean that since the MKI already have a higher RCS due to being physically larger than the JF-17, a fully loaded MKI will have an even higher RCS value? Yes, we can be confident in that assumption.

However, and keep in mind that bombs and missiles are pretty much the same all over, weapons load on the smaller JF-17 may -- not definitive -- be more electronically distinguishable, like the engines on the Lockheed, thereby rendering the JF-17's smaller size irrelevant.

Radar detection algorithms will call a large cluster as a 'target', but if there is a cluster of smaller clusters, that will be classified as a 'target' as well. A fully loaded JF-17 may very well fall under this.

From my experience, given the CLOSING SPEED, the difference in sizes, fully weapons loaded or not, between the MKI and JF-17 is meaningless. the radar will process and see both at the same time and at the same distance.

Welcome back. You're a very informative poster and its always good to see you come back after a hiatus.

Your analysis doesn't take into account that the MKI will be operating with a larger number of missiles than the JF-17. That's 6-8 vs 4 missiles carried, a considerable difference.

Also, the rule is that RCS size and EW are linked. The smaller the RCS, the more effective the EW against a radar trying to get at it.

Additionally, if PL-15 is in fact housing an AESA unit, that would mean that the RCS of the missile would be smaller compared to the Russian BVR.

Between, learned members here note that the RCS of the JF-17 block 2 is smaller than that of the F-16. And the Block 3 is designed with low RCS in mind. If we assume RCS for block 2 is 0.8 and block 3 is 0.5, while the RCS of the MKI is 5-10, a significant advantage can be given to the JF-17 in detection and jamming.

 

[PeacefulWar]

Did anyone read this? This is huge!

Venezuelan Air Defence's Chinese-made Radar Detects US F-22 Stealth Jet

 

[Armchair]

Okay so just want to add:

Russian AAMs with their giant weird shaped fins and overall less put together construction probably have an RCS of about 0.25 per missile. This is my extrapolation from Westrern missiles supposedly about 0.2 for the AMRAAM and 0.1 for sidewinders.

We can assume the PL-15 is better because of the clipped (less visible, smaller) fins and the AESA radar in the nose. Let us assume that is 0.15.

Not sure how that will interact with the aircraft but if we sum them together (which admittedly isn't necessarily accurate) we get:

JF-17 block 2 (2x WVR, 2x PL-15) : 0.8 + 2x(0.1) + 2x (0.15) = 1.3 RCS
JF0-17 block 3 (2x WVR, 4x PL-15): 0.5 + 2x (0.1) + 4x (0.15) = 1.3 RCS

Su-30 MKI has an RCS of 4-20. let's assume 10 and a loadout of 2+6

10 + 2 x (0.1) + 6 x (0.25) = 11.7

That is a huge difference. Now, it is not only a question of detection by an enemy aircraft radar but also by the radars on BVR AAMs. Furthermore, it is a question of how effective one's EW will be. The smaller your RCS, the easier it is for your EW to protect you and vice versa. This is a well known argument used by the F-35 crowd.

 

[The Accountant]

Let us go to the extreme for now...

Airliners are large enough aircrafts to use in this discussion.

In the examples above, we can see on both the Boeing and the Lockheed where their engines are. The voltage spikes and the darker areas are the clues.

On the Boeing, the three engines are close enough together in the tail section that they are indistinguishable from each other. All three engines formed a cluster. Not so for the Lockheed, we can see the engines as represented by the large and dark areas on the wings.

From this extreme example, we can move the scale back to the aircrafts in discussion: MKI and JF-17. If we install a missile-like object on the airliner, most likely this object will disappear among the spikes. Simply put, even though the missile is an RCS contributor, its signal will literally be 'absorbed' by other signals. We can even be generous and say that destructive interference will cancel out the missile's RCS. On the other hand, constructive interference will make the overall RCS greater. We simply DO NOT KNOW. Precisely because we do not know that 'stealth' designs internalized their weapons. We do not want to take chances that constructive interference will occur. Best to go with the worst case scenario that constructive interference will always occur, so carry the weapons internally.

Missiles and bombs from all manufacturers will have similar dimensions and shapes based upon their yield designs. You can make a 250lb yield bomb the size of a train if you want, but why? So if we are to take the standard weapons load on the MKI and the JF-17, we will see that those bombs and missiles are pretty much similar in dimensions. They are already the same in shape, right?

Now we have to ask: Which is physically larger in terms of structural dimensions, the MKI or the JF-17?

Which aircraft is so large that bombs and missiles could electronically be 'absorbed' by other structures? We can be confident that a cluster of bombs/missiles will not be distinguishable on the airliner. But here we are talking about two aircrafts - MKI and JF-17 -- that have similar structural dimensions and structural array.

Dimension is wing tip to wing tip, for an example. Simple.

Array is more complex. It means wing shape and location on fuselage. Change the shape and there will be a different RCS. Put the wing higher on the fuselage and there will be a different aircraft RCS. Put the wing forward/aft on the fuselage and there will be a different aircraft RCS as well.

We know that the weapons locations are not significant variables on both aircrafts. Where else can we put them? So in terms of RCS, we know WHERE they will be: Wing tips, below the wings, and lower fuselage.

So does this mean that since the MKI already have a higher RCS due to being physically larger than the JF-17, a fully loaded MKI will have an even higher RCS value? Yes, we can be confident in that assumption.

However, and keep in mind that bombs and missiles are pretty much the same all over, weapons load on the smaller JF-17 may -- not definitive -- be more electronically distinguishable, like the engines on the Lockheed, thereby rendering the JF-17's smaller size irrelevant.

Radar detection algorithms will call a large cluster as a 'target', but if there is a cluster of smaller clusters, that will be classified as a 'target' as well. A fully loaded JF-17 may very well fall under this.

From my experience, given the CLOSING SPEED, the difference in sizes, fully weapons loaded or not, between the MKI and JF-17 is meaningless. the radar will process and see both at the same time and at the same distance.

Thanks for such a detailed information. It is always a treat to read your comments.

However it raises few questions.

Is it right to compare reflection from huge engines of commercial planes with missile which are usually of very low diameters specially air to air missiles.

Plus the ease of detection is always dependant on the area of the surface. So higher the surface area higher will be the waves bounced back and easier for radar to interpret the signal but a smaller sized thunder carrying air to air missiles will have much lesser exposed areas to bounce back and hence the signal will be weak at long distances (in comparative terms).

Basically u r assuming that radar algorithim will be able to interpret small clustered bounced back combined with speed however my view is the bounced back signals will be too weak at long distances even to identify them as a cluster in comparative terms.

 

[gambit]

Welcome back. You're a very informative poster and its always good to see you come back after a hiatus.

Thanks. Been busy moving. From out west back to east.

Your analysis doesn't take into account that the MKI will be operating with a larger number of missiles than the JF-17. That's 6-8 vs 4 missiles carried, a considerable difference.

Not meant to be.

What I was trying to convey was that the RCS issue is simple in concept but complex in execution. An aircraft is a complex structure that is composed of many smaller complex structures, and each of the smaller structures is composed of even smaller complex structures. When we have an attached structure that is prominent -- like a 500 kg bomb versus a smaller AIM-9 -- radar processing will place a higher priority on the bomb in relation to the aircraft. On the other hand, if the aircraft is carrying one 500 kg bomb but 6 missiles, radar processing will place a higher priority on the many missiles. It all depends on which singular signal or multiplicity of signals that have a higher aggregate amplitude.

In sum, a smaller fighter does not automatically mean a superior RCS advantage. When I was on the F-16, nobody wanted to mess with it when the jet was configured for air-air sortie, even if the jet carries two external wing tanks, the F-16 was small visually and electronically. But when loaded for ground, then given the bombs, the jet was no different than the larger F-15E.

 

[gambit]

Thanks for such a detailed information. It is always a treat to read your comments.

Yer welcome...

However it raises few questions.

Is it right to compare reflection from huge engines of commercial planes with missile which are usually of very low diameters specially air to air missiles.

Plus the ease of detection is always dependant on the area of the surface. So higher the surface area higher will be the waves bounced back and easier for radar to interpret the signal but a smaller sized thunder carrying air to air missiles will have much lesser exposed areas to bounce back and hence the signal will be weak at long distances (in comparative terms).

Basically u r assuming that radar algorithim will be able to interpret small clustered bounced back combined with speed however my view is the bounced back signals will be too weak at long distances even to identify them as a cluster in comparative terms.

Frontal RCS will always be the smallest aspect, unless we have something like exposed engines -- airliners.

In the early days of radar data processing, we targeted singular amplitude because we simply did not have the electronics to do anything more complex. We knew that complex bodies will produce complex signals (plural) but we did not have the electronics to discrete out those lesser signals. One result was that the F-4 would be targeted but the A-4 would be missed, even though both jets would be loaded and at similar ranges. The only way we could detect both jets would be if we look at both from either top or under side.

That is not the case today. The inverse square rule is a two-way street. The transmit signal loses strength on its way to the target, then the reflected signals loses strength on the journey back to the seeking radar. In order for the inverse square rule to be a tactical advantage, the smaller JF-17 would have to be at significant distance from the larger MKI. How significant is the unknown. We would have to make both jets stationary, configured similarly to each other, and perform radar measurement. Modern avionics will not ignore clusters of weak signals at the tactical level. This is both good and bad. Good because the smaller threat will be processed. Bad because the smaller threat can use background noise, such as ground signals, to mask its own RCS.

 

[Salman876]

off topic question, but asking because i couldn't get answer from anywhere.
Question: Why strike formations turn off their radar? For example i read somewhere that on 26 Feb, IAF mirages had turned off their radar to avoid detection. Is it possible that turning off radar will make detection difficult?

 

[gambit]

off topic question, but asking because i couldn't get answer from anywhere.
Question: Why strike formations turn off their radar? For example i read somewhere that on 26 Feb, IAF mirages had turned off their radar to avoid detection. Is it possible that turning off radar will make detection difficult?

If you are asking: 'Why would anyone fly blind -- with radar turn off?'

The tactical reason is that the enemy can use my radar transmissions to locate me. So if I fly 'blind', he cannot find me. On the other hand, because I am flying 'blind, it will be difficult for me to find my targets. It is a trade off.

 

[The Accountant]

Thanks. Been busy moving. From out west back to east.


Not meant to be.

What I was trying to convey was that the RCS issue is simple in concept but complex in execution. An aircraft is a complex structure that is composed of many smaller complex structures, and each of the smaller structures is composed of even smaller complex structures. When we have an attached structure that is prominent -- like a 500 kg bomb versus a smaller AIM-9 -- radar processing will place a higher priority on the bomb in relation to the aircraft. On the other hand, if the aircraft is carrying one 500 kg bomb but 6 missiles, radar processing will place a higher priority on the many missiles. It all depends on which singular signal or multiplicity of signals that have a higher aggregate amplitude.

In sum, a smaller fighter does not automatically mean a superior RCS advantage. When I was on the F-16, nobody wanted to mess with it when the jet was configured for air-air sortie, even if the jet carries two external wing tanks, the F-16 was small visually and electronically. But when loaded for ground, then given the bombs, the jet was no different than the larger F-15E.

So in conclusion, JF17 may or may have RCS advantage in certain scenarios but not in others. In short the pilots needs to be aware of the strength and weakness of its aircraft as well as adversaries radar positions so they can use maximum benefit of the smaller size but on the other hand if you don't know how to use smaller size to your advantage you can give away your location just like any other bigger aircraft. So its always subjective and no definitive answer is there.

However, I came to one conclusion that when you are using a smaller plan you have a advantage of a possibility to use the size to your advantage to delay your detection for a few seconds but the same is advantage tactics is difficult for bigger sized aircraft.

 

[gambit]

So in conclusion, JF17 may or may have RCS advantage in certain scenarios but not in others. In short the pilots needs to be aware of the strength and weakness of its aircraft as well as adversaries radar positions so they can use maximum benefit of the smaller size but on the other hand if you don't know how to use smaller size to your advantage you can give away your location just like any other bigger aircraft. So its always subjective and no definitive answer is there.

You got the idea...

However, I came to one conclusion that when you are using a smaller plan you have a advantage of a possibility to use the size to your advantage to delay your detection for a few seconds but the same is advantage tactics is difficult for bigger sized aircraft.

If you are small, you can get bigger, but if you are bigger, you cannot get smaller -- electrically speaking, that is.

 

[Falcon26]

If you are asking: 'Why would anyone fly blind -- with radar turn off?'

The tactical reason is that the enemy can use my radar transmissions to locate me. So if I fly 'blind', he cannot find me. On the other hand, because I am flying 'blind, it will be difficult for me to find my targets. It is a trade off.

What if the plane flying blind is being fed by AWACS?

Welcome back, always a real pleasure reading your posts.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Blk 3 - 25 = 25

Rafales won't be 4 when Block III will be 25

In sum, a smaller fighter does not automatically mean a superior RCS advantage. When I was on the F-16, nobody wanted to mess with it when the jet was configured for air-air sortie, even if the jet carries two external wing tanks, the F-16 was small visually and electronically. But when loaded for ground, then given the bombs, the jet was no different than the larger F-15E.

So whats your opinion for RCS of A2A configuration of MKI and JF17?