PAF vs. IAF Analysis- Air Combat Over the Subcontinent

[saiko]

you know what guys RCS ALSO DEPENDS ON THE TRANSMITTING RADARS POWER hence term RCS is a grossly mistaken term



so simply its like holding a torch in a dark alley and things you might see will depend on two things

1 size of the object (target) in front of you
2 power of the torch you are holding

most of you guys simply miss the second point altogether hence it also depends on the power transmitted by the radar .....so MKI radar obviously produces more power than f-16 mlu ones hence f-16 having smaller SO CALLED RCS may not have any significant advantage at all

of course this is true, but almost every radar manufacturer will give you the detection range of an X rcs object at Y range. Using those figures you can calculate the detection range of a given RCS sized object of a given radar set.

i will try to find the input figures again so i can show you the formula and maths behind it, but the Su-30MKI has an RCS of something like 8+ times that of a late model F-16. That's huge.

and yes, both planes should be able to detect each other beyond the maximum range of their MRAAMss, but being able to detect first beyond that is still an advantage. if AWACS or other acquisition radar is not available it allows you potentially approach from an angle where radar on an opposing fighter will not pick you up, or pick you up at an even shorter range.

i'm of the opinion that the su-30mki is the better fighter, but it's not a huge difference over late-model f-16s. the only problem for the PAF is their limited number of late-model F-16s and it remains to be seen what the FC-20 will end up being performance wise.

 

[zombie:-)]

of course this is true, but almost every radar manufacturer will give you the detection range of an X rcs object at Y range. Using those figures you can calculate the detection range of a given RCS sized object of a given radar set.

i will try to find the input figures again so i can show you the formula and maths behind it, but the Su-30MKI has an RCS of something like 8+ times that of a late model F-16. That's huge.

and yes, both planes should be able to detect each other beyond the maximum range of their MRAAMss, but being able to detect first beyond that is still an advantage. if AWACS or other acquisition radar is not available it allows you potentially approach from an angle where radar on an opposing fighter will not pick you up, or pick you up at an even shorter range.

i'm of the opinion that the su-30mki is the better fighter, but it's not a huge difference over late-model f-16s. the only problem for the PAF is their limited number of late-model F-16s and it remains to be seen what the FC-20 will end up being performance wise.

let me bring out another factor ...american f-16s are coated with RAM at critical places where ailerons and control surfaces move and i have asked a question in the airforce question thread weather PAF upgraded f-16s have these coatings Mr.muradk said that it was too costly and paf opted for other electronics stuff .....all of us know that americans always keep the best of tech for themselves they are not russians who can give costemers a plane that is half a generation ahead of what they have in their force ...yes russians were cash strapped but americans will never let happen a la MKI with other nations ...hence f-16 RCS is not the same all around the world

 

[anoopsaxena76]

The AIM-120Chas a range of 105KM, while the R-77 has a range of 90KM. So there the AIM has an advantage.

Good morning / Good night, which ever is applicable .

Do the PAF F-16's use AIM-120C? I think they use AIM-120A/B?

AIM has some key digital advantages such as the active homing distance is larger than that of R-77.

Again which AIM are we talking about?

Regards,
Anoop.

 

[Patriot]

Pakistan Air Force has ordered 500 AIM-120 C-5 AMRAAMs back in 2005 i think.I am not sure though but i read this news few years ago.

 

[Keysersoze]

Delivery should be complete soon. And all F-16's the PAF has are capable of firing it.

 

[MaXimMaRz]

MaximMarz,

I have asked you before to provide any source for your claims.

I don't know where you keep getting your figures from. Show me one proof MKI has 2m² RCS?

Last time you were telling me a commercial airliner has an RCS of 4m² which is absolutely false.

Secondly, are you talking about the basic APG-68 or the APG-68v9? because the later has a 30% increase over the former in terms of range. PAF new F-16s will have the v9 as will all the other ones after MLU.

So if you have a proof, enlighten us so we can increase our knowledge and discuss in a much more informed way. Just floating numbers without proof leads you nowhere.


added:

Btw, the difference between an APG-66 and APG-68

"The AN/APG-68 is an advanced pulse-Doppler radar with increased range, more modes and better resolution compared to the AN/APG-66 radar. AN/APG-68 exclusive modes include medium resolution mapping, ground target MTI, and ground moving, target track in air-to-ground mode, and track-while scan, ground moving, target rejection, velocity search and medium PRF up-look in air-to-air mode. Development of the AN/APG-68(V) began in 1980 as part of a USAF effort to incorporate new computer processing technologies into the F-16, as well as to adapt it to carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile"

Wow !!! From ur post , it seems u still hurt badly .....Now this time listen once and for all from my side.... ok

1. What ever i Quote (ranges, info or what ever ) its not from the common sites and off course not from wikis and other publicity sites like them. I put in everything Right from the practical exercises conducted, from different people and trust me its 99.9% correct. And since its right from the practical ground therefor u might have noticed i never gave out any of the PAF ranges or what ever.....

2. I cant Quote the source, thats a limitation, live with it or go have cold shower and dont follow my posts

3. I am amazed that u still dont get what i tried to tell u about RCS , Here is a hint : calculate for the worst aspect of the target, now figure it out yourself.

4. APG-66 and APG-68 , the major differnce is TWS , never mind keep posting OEM sites they make it to sell

If u guys have some much problem with my posts , well then enjoy copy pastes and have fun from my side.....I will find some other place to talk....

 

[Contrarian]

A few points to mention in all this:

1. Both the Su-30 and the F-16 carry EXTERNAL loaded weapons. They enhance the RCS of planes considerably. Theoretical calculations with the RCS of the plane in question do no good. So when the push comes to shove, both the planes in discussion would have a shining RCS.

2. Then comes the issue of RAM. RAM is indeed applied on the Su-30 MKI as well. I am not aware whether RAM is included in the MLU as well. Maybe Murad Sir can shed light on this-some one said above, that he has said, PAF opted for better electronics instead for the money.

3.All this discussion is based on the PAF acquiring the new builds, which as some members have suggested might not reach PAF soon.

People are assuming that the Su-30 will remain the same it is now. The Su-30MKI is slated to undergo MLU. What is certain to change is the radar, what is NOT certain is whether the engine will change or not. I assume from the quality of discussion here, people are aware of the technologies developed for the Su-35 and the ongoing research for the PAK-FA. A lot of it is likely to get retrofitted on the Su-30.

While all this is quite into the future with regards for PAK-FA, the MLU otherwise would be around 2014-15. Not quite far off.

I'll add more points as and when i remember them.

 

[mean_bird]

Wow !!! From ur post , it seems u still hurt badly .....Now this time listen once and for all from my side.... ok

1. What ever i Quote (ranges, info or what ever ) its not from the common sites and off course not from wikis and other publicity sites like them. I put in everything Right from the practical exercises conducted, from different people and trust me its 99.9% correct. And since its right from the practical ground therefor u might have noticed i never gave out any of the PAF ranges or what ever.....

2. I cant Quote the source, thats a limitation, live with it or go have cold shower and dont follow my posts

And 99.9% of the email scams I receive promising $40million from the wife and daughter of the late Sani Abacha of Nigeria also start with "trust me..."

And there are other sources on the web, like defense journals, professional magazines, highly-rated books,etc from where you can provide some source.

Now you are talking about PAF, in another thread you claim your sources to be "IAF exercises". So now you conduct practical exercises for the PAF and IAF simultaneously?

Bottom line is that this is an open forum for people to join and debate. And whatever one posts can have an effect on an ongoing debate.

3. I am amazed that u still dont get what i tried to tell u about RCS , Here is a hint : calculate for the worst aspect of the target, now figure it out yourself.

OH, so you calculated that yourself too. Mind showing us your calculations? I am sure calculating the RCS of a commercial airliner available to all and sundry is no secret so that card wont work here.

4. APG-66 and APG-68 , the major differnce is TWS , never mind keep posting OEM sites they make it to sell

If u guys have some much problem with my posts , well then enjoy copy pastes and have fun from my side.....I will find some other place to talk....

I am sure there are quite a few newbie sites that might get impressed by your numbers.

I am sorry if this post looks a bit harsh, but that's how I feel when I see rumors and figures being floated to prove ones point. I am sure if what your claims are correct, you can provide at least one reference of the many credible books, journals,etc that have been published rather then claim some "practical exercises".

 

[MaXimMaRz]

And 99.9% of the email scams I receive promising $40million from the wife and daughter of the late Sani Abacha of Nigeria also start with "trust me..."

And there are other sources on the web, like defense journals, professional magazines, highly-rated books,etc from where you can provide some source.

Now you are talking about PAF, in another thread you claim your sources to be "IAF exercises". So now you conduct practical exercises for the PAF and IAF simultaneously?

Bottom line is that this is an open forum for people to join and debate. And whatever one posts can have an effect on an ongoing debate.



OH, so you calculated that yourself too. Mind showing us your calculations? I am sure calculating the RCS of a commercial airliner available to all and sundry is no secret so that card wont work here.



I am sure there are quite a few newbie sites that might get impressed by your numbers.

I am sorry if this post looks a bit harsh, but that's how I feel when I see rumors and figures being floated to prove ones point. I am sure if what your claims are correct, you can provide at least one reference of the many credible books, journals,etc that have been published rather then claim some "practical exercises".

Look ! books publish theories , reports publish results. there r exercises like falcon talon, in pakistan and many r held in India, results that comes from there r not published in books and u dont get to know them, those who are related to such things get to know them. thats where my info comes from, u talk abovt me impressing newbies, who r u reading articles form the net gives u 20 or 30 percent of the data that too all the ideal tech crap. Since u dont no even the ABC of Air power doctrine i think i have wasted alot of time on u.

And i dont know why RCS has become a Alter ego for u. heres the explaNITION FOR THAT

a Average size airliner once on a radial heading ( inbound or outbound) having the the same AOA as of the beam (into the beam) makes the minimum RCS , Avg is 4m sq.

 

[MaXimMaRz]

you know what guys RCS ALSO DEPENDS ON THE TRANSMITTING RADARS POWER hence term RCS is a grossly mistaken term



so simply its like holding a torch in a dark alley and things you might see will depend on two things

1 size of the object (target) in front of you
2 power of the torch you are holding

most of you guys simply miss the second point altogether hence it also depends on the power transmitted by the radar .....so MKI radar obviously produces more power than f-16 mlu ones hence f-16 having smaller SO CALLED RCS may not have any significant advantage at all

the more output power produced more range theory no longer stands good for modern radars the reason is :

1. These days radars use pulse compression method : that is minimizing the max out put power , and increasing the range resolution.

2. some good radars se LPI feature ( the radar keeps its output power to the minimum , as required so that the RWR of the victim AC doesnt kick in.

3. active phased array radars are sensitive , they got Tx/Rx modules that work on small amount of power

4. Generating more powers means more energy required and more energy means u need a wave guide (gold plated on the inside) to handle the pulse. thats not possible once u got a small AI

 

[blain2]

One note to every one (Newbies and old timers).

Lets try to go easy on the use of acronyms. Not everybody understands acronyms. By throwing out acronyms, you do not impress any one, rather cause more confusion.

If the idea is to benefit others with your post, then please put the diligence in and write out the meaning of acronyms.

Over the past month, I have seen examples of upwards of 4 different acronyms being used for the same term in the same thread...they were different because of where they were being used (US, UK, Pakistan, etc. etc.). There are users from all over the world here, so do us all a favour and write out the terminology first and then start using the acronyms so people understand what they mean.

Thank you.

 

[mean_bird]

Look ! books publish theories , reports publish results. there r exercises like falcon talon, in pakistan and many r held in India, results that comes from there r not published in books and u dont get to know them, those who are related to such things get to know them. thats where my info comes from, u talk abovt me impressing newbies, who r u reading articles form the net gives u 20 or 30 percent of the data that too all the ideal tech crap. Since u dont no even the ABC of Air power doctrine i think i have wasted alot of time on u.

You are right, unlike you I do not know the ABC of inventing bogus numbers with no reason or logic or proof.

And i dont know why RCS has become a Alter ego for u. heres the explaNITION FOR THAT

a Average size airliner once on a radial heading ( inbound or outbound) having the the same AOA as of the beam (into the beam) makes the minimum RCS , Avg is 4m sq.

Just another of your own invention.

Just as an example the RCS of K-135 is 100m² and that of a F-15 is about 12m². You can verify these as stated in the book Lockheed stealth By Bill Sweetman page 37 (Preview of this page is available on google books for free for verification).

The question is not that RCS of an airliner is that important, the question is you are spreading bogus and false information on this website.

I would like to request the Admins/Mods of this website to please ask this gentleman to stop misleading by posting false information.

 

[Munir]

A big radar is a big flashlight in the dark. You just use your ECM and sensors to locate opponent. The Flankers has one of the worst RCS... Even with its radar off you will see the big flash... And what if it scans you at large distance? You can go everywhere... And it will surely not able to use its BVR's at that range. I think it is over done to say that Flanker has advantages...

 

[anoopsaxena76]

I cant Quote the source, thats a limitation, live with it or go have cold shower and dont follow my posts

Well I could be wrong here, but whatever you have quoted, most of it, can be found at Air power Australia site, an excellent site. Though I am sure most folks already know about it.

Regards,
Anoop.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hello gentlemen,

If you are having a hard time understanding MaximMarz---it is not his problem---it is so that we lack the information---that information is not available on a web-site---so no link can be provided---please read and learn---by reading the style of writing---try to understand to whom you are talking to. Max is an asset on this board---please learn to differentiate between general information that is being provided on the web---and some real firsthand information. Thanks.

Folks----here it goes---" SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BUTCHER'S WORD FOR IT---YOU CAN'T STICK YOUR HEAD INTO THE BULL BEHIND TO CHECK THE STEAK everytime ".