JY-27A radar spotted in Pakistan

[The Accountant]

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.

This might not be the luxury in case of India Pakistan where the forward air fields and other military installations are few 100 kms away.

 

[gambit]

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

It would be a one-way communication.

There are two types of AWACS guidance: radar and data.

AWACS radar guidance is when the AWACS operate its radar as usual and it is up to the fighter to process any reflections from any source.

AWACS data guidance is when the AWACS transmit to the fighter target specific location such as altitude, airspeed, and heading. That transmission can be voice or other forms of code.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each. With radar guidance, the AWACS must transmit continuously whereas with data guidance, the AWACS can make a brief radar transmission, process all necessary target data, and burst send the data to receiving fighters. That is just one example. There are more according to tactical needs but I will just leave there.

 

[Salman876]

So if I fly 'blind', he cannot find me.

Thanks for information!
Will it be impossible for him to find you? What is technical term used for it? (So that I can read more about it)

 

[gambit]

Thanks for information!
Will it be impossible for him to find you? What is technical term used for it? (So that I can read more about it)

Impossible? No, just difficult. Keep in mind that he is using his radar to look for me. With me transmitting my own radar, I made his job easier. When I was active duty and assigned to the F-111 back in the Cold War days, NATO pilots routinely trained penetration via passive methods, meaning using only 'radar threat warning receivers' (keywords search). If we touch the edge of a radar net, our threat receivers would alarm and we would veer off, to put it simply. There are more to that but the tactic is still being practiced today so I will just leave you with the general idea.

 

[TsAr]

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.

Good to see you back Sir. as always you come up with quality stuff....

 

[Armchair]

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.

The other element missing is the fit and finish of the aircraft. the MKI (and Russian aircraft in general) have very rough fit and finish. This contributes to RCS by a giant margin. Engine blades are also open in the MKI while not so in the JFT.

Your jammer works much better if you have a small RCS to hide. Doesn't do much if you have a giant one.

 

[gambit]

Your jammer works much better if you have a small RCS to hide. Doesn't do much if you have a giant one.

A 'jammer' is electronically active. Electronic Warfare (EW) is about creating an environment where the enemy could not focus on a single target.

If you are alone in a field and you are holding a shield, I can see the shield and can assume that you are behind the shield, however, I cannot harm you because of the shield. That is EW.

 

[Armchair]

A 'jammer' is electronically active. Electronic Warfare (EW) is about creating an environment where the enemy could not focus on a single target.

If you are alone in a field and you are holding a shield, I can see the shield and can assume that you are behind the shield, however, I cannot harm you because of the shield. That is EW.

But air wars are not going to be fought alone with a man and a shield.

 

[Blacklight]

Your jammer works much better if you have a small RCS to hide. Doesn't do much if you have a giant one.

No Sir, this is the actual beauty of a good EW system.

In simple words, Lets say you want to target a B52, but it has a growler with it. You cant. This is how good it is.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

Your jammer works much better if you have a small RCS to hide. Doesn't do much if you have a giant one.

EW system on the Su is very competent, for self protection, carries the SAP 518 on wing tips.

The main SAP-518 mission is to protect an individual aircraft. It operates as an antiradar and constantly sends distorted information to adversary radars. It reflects the signal with delay, distorts the distance to the target, as well as speed and angle position. It impedes the radar in detecting targets, determining their parameters and forming the necessary information for the weapons

https://www.airrecognition.com/inde...jamming-pods-following-syrian-experience.html

 

[gambit]

The other element missing is the fit and finish of the aircraft. the MKI (and Russian aircraft in general) have very rough fit and finish. This contributes to RCS by a giant margin.

A pages back I brought on this example...

I would like everyone to focus on the Lockheed (right) and ask why the voltage spikes (dark areas) are so prominent, notably on the fuselage and the wings' trailing edges.

The issue here is surface discontinuity. The fuselage have windows. The wing trailing edge contain flaps and ailerons, structures that alters the wing shape. For any surface traveling wave, any surface discontinuity is an exit point, meaning a portion of the traveling wave will 'leap off' that surface discontinuity and radiate into free space. Hence, the prominent dark areas on the fuselage and wing trailing edges.

Fit and finish fall under surface discontinuities. This is why maintenance on the F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2 are more labor intensive than previous generation. The avionics, pneudraulics, and assorted internal components are not Area-51 alien advanced. The F-117 used components from the F-16 and F-18. The high labor cost come from maintaining surface integrity. The work is time consuming and actually boring. It take one minute to open an access panel, one minute to close, but five minutes to take radar measurement of the area. In peacetime, the jet will be hangared and technicians will investigate why an area failed radar measurement. Often, it is something like a few worn out fasteners that created surface discontinuities that caused the area to fail radar measurement. But in wartime, if the measurement does not breach a certain threshold, the jet will be allowed to fly. So it became a misleading statistics that 'stealth' aircrafts are often broke and 'hangar queens'.

 

[LKJ86]

Via @空军在线 from Weixin