What's new

PAF's MBDA-SPADA 2000 Surface to Air Missile System.

No libya had no s-300 lol.U got ur facts muddled up.
The Libyan Air Defense System. Libya’s Surface to Air Missile (SAM) Network | Global Research

All they had were soviet era obsolete SAMs which were totally outclassed.
Why do u think so much hue and cry over russia supplying s-300 to assad?It far more lethal platform and in nato exercise simulations,all aircraft includng f-series fighters suffered heavily to s-300 batteries of slovakia except rafale.SPECTRA=PWN.Currently only raptor has similar operational system with data fusion,eurofighter,pak fa and f-35 will have it in future.

My bad sorry. But still why did the NATO navies cleared AD first and sent their fighter in?
Was that AD too good or just their pilots r ''mummy daddy'' types?
 
.
My bad sorry. But still why did the NATO navies cleared AD first and sent their fighter in?
Was that AD too good or just their pilots r ''mummy daddy'' types?

Standard operating procedure.SEAD and DEAD are undertaken first in an aerial campaign.Take no chances.These are professionals,they do it step by step and leave nothing to chance.
 
. . .
Just google MACE XIII and s-300 .It was all over the net.f-16,electronic warfare f-4s didn't escape unscathed.Only one who was immune was rafale.

I did, the claim originated on a Russian forum. I don't consider that a reliable source. Again, what is the source for your claim?
 
.
I did, the claim originated on a Russian forum. I don't consider that a reliable source. Again, what is the source for your claim?

''The French were working on active cancellation (AC) technologies for years and it looks like the were finally succesful. Last years "Mace XIII" exercise hold in Slovakia against a S-300PMU1 system had a clear winner: The Rafale B with the Spectra ECM system. The Rafale was the only one who made it against the S-300, using active cancellation and emitting "bogey targets".

Part of the "attacking force" were also French Air Force Mirage 2000Ds, Royal Danish Air Force F-16AMs, a NATO E-3A and a French Air Force E-3F, Royal Norwegian Air Force Falcon 20, Slovakian Air Force MiG-29AS/UBS and L-39ZAM. The Turkish Air Force participated with its F-4E-2020s Phantom II with israelian Elta EL/L-8222 ECM Pods. There was also a private owned German Learjet 35A with 2 Cassidian ECM pods. The "attacking force" (except the Rafale B) achieved a partial suppression of the S-300, but well-trained SAM crews were able to overcome this and keep the system combat ready. I. e. in a real fight the attacking force had to take serious losses.''

''In May 2012 a large exercise took place in Slovakia under the code name MACE XIII, where SA-300PMU was challenged by modern NATO ECM/ESM sets under complex SEAD procedures. Several NATO countries took part in this exercise, French Mirage and Rafale, Danish F-16, Norway with DA-20, NATO E-3 AWACS, Turkish F-4, German Learjet with ECM/ESM set and approximately 4 others ground jammers with some partial success, with the result, that S-300PMU with professionally trained crew is capable of effective operations under complex ECM/ESM environment with high level of success.''



U can gather these info from all over the net not just russian forums but blogs,and forums,why would russians prop up rafale,do u think they have some agenda to sell rafale?
 
.
U can gather these info from all over the net not just russian forums but blogs,and forums,why would russians prop up rafale,do u think they have some agenda to sell rafale?

Blogs and forums isn't a reliable source. Lets not side track this discussion by speculating on the motives of some anonymous forum poster.
 
.
Blogs and forums isn't a reliable source. Lets not side track this discussion by speculating on the motives of some anonymous forum poster.

Then believe what u will-simple logic is russian members would have no purpose in promoting rafale,a western aircraft.
 
.
Blogs and forums isn't a reliable source. Lets not side track this discussion by speculating on the motives of some anonymous forum poster.

Hello ma'am ! :wave:

Hows the Hubby & the Little Angel ? How are you ? :)

A question, if I may : Apparently the Pakistani Armed Forces haven't invested quite a bit into SAMs & I've talked to some of the more, shall we say informed, Pakistani posters on PDF & they maintain that there exist severe short-comings in Pakistan's Air-Defense Cover (I dunno what the proper term would be :ashamed: ) !

My question is that, in your opinion, is that because of :

(i) Purely Restraint Constraints

Or that it could be because of some (ii) Doctrinal Thinking whereby Long-Range SAMs are not considered a useful addition enough to defend Pakistani Airspace due to their vulnerability to Anti-Radiation Missiles, our inability to get them from anyone but China, our extremely scarce resources & the knowledge that their acquisition would come with an opportunity cost which would see some other platform (or Project) scrapped because of limited funds available !

Could it be so that the Military Thinkers believe that the benefits that a full-fledged well integrated Air Defense System would not be able to provide the same benefit, even if the costs weren't so prohibitively high, that it justifies putting other Projects on hold & that a mix of Interceptors & AWACs along with Ground Radar Cover would be able to serve us better & still free the funds for other Projects ?

Thank You, much obliged ! :)
 
.
Then believe what u will-simple logic is russian members would have no purpose in promoting rafale,a western aircraft.

..and you mustn't believe everything you read on the internet. Again I don't want to speculate on the motive of some forum member that you believe is Russian and privy to the results of a NATO exercise.
 
.
..and you mustn't believe everything you read on the internet. Again I don't want to speculate on the motive of some forum member that you believe is Russian and privy to the results of a NATO exercise.

It was leaked by slovak members as far as i know.
And its not clutching straws in the air,as dassault has often boasted about its active cancellation tech on the rafale for yrs.
Note modernized mirage 2000s took part in same exercise,and they weren't praised..so it wasn't due to any french bias.
 
. .
''The French were working on active cancellation (AC) technologies for years and it looks like the were finally succesful.

I don't think I need to read any further. The 'Active Cancellation' you are mentioning was really a 90's technology. It it not something that's limited to Rafale only. It's used by many jets, including some of the Swedish jets, certain American, British, French and Russian jets, etc, too.

1: The forum - or blog you listed, has no credibility. Show me the same stuff from Janes or the manufacturer of Rafale or some French company who makes pods or electronics for Active Cancellation....(who also refer to this exercise as Rafale seems like the best of the best, this would be GREAT FREE marketing won't you think?).

2: Always remember, NATO participation doesn't mean NATO's jets flying in one configuration or with 'Active Cancellation' pods at all times. In fact, the US (and I assume the NATO also) does exercises with other with a down graded configuration. The idea is to pitch your worst configuration against the best and see how it measures out. The US rarely uses its state of the art equipment in exercises to max.

3: SU-300 series is a good SAM and it'll threaten pretty much all planes unless we are talking about F-22 or F-35 or stealthy UCAV's. But, to put Rafale on top of the world doesn't help your argument as it sounds silly. Specifically, when you have no valid proof.

4: The topic is for Spada 2000 I believe. I'd love to debate with you on a SU-300 series SAM forum if there is any.
 
.
I don't think I need to read any further. The 'Active Cancellation' you are mentioning was really a 90's technology. It it not something that's limited to Rafale only. It's used by many jets, including some of the Swedish jets, certain American, British, French and Russian jets, etc, too.

1: The forum - or blog you listed, has no credibility. Show me the same stuff from Janes or the manufacturer of Rafale or some French company who makes pods or electronics for Active Cancellation....(who also refer to this exercise as Rafale seems like the best of the best, this would be GREAT FREE marketing won't you think?).

2: Always remember, NATO participation doesn't mean NATO's jets flying in one configuration or with 'Active Cancellation' pods at all times. In fact, the US (and I assume the NATO also) does exercises with other with a down graded configuration. The idea is to pitch your worst configuration against the best and see how it measures out. The US rarely uses its state of the art equipment in exercises to max.

3: SU-300 series is a good SAM and it'll threaten pretty much all planes unless we are talking about F-22 or F-35 or stealthy UCAV's. But, to put Rafale on top of the world doesn't help your argument as it sounds silly. Specifically, when you have no valid proof.

4: The topic is for Spada 2000 I believe. I'd love to debate with you on a SU-300 series SAM forum if there is any.

USA wasn't even in the exercise,how can it use inferior equipment,lol.
I didn't put rafael on top of the world,the russian-slovaks did,and not on top of the world only better than the other platforms in the exercise by far.And that electronically.Which is plausible since rafale is the newest and spectra amounts to 30-35% of the entire cost of the plane i think.This 90s tech as u say is only operational on rafale and raptor probably atm[raptor doesn't need it i think being all aspect stealth] and probably later in eurofighter and f-35.
A Stealthier Rafale?

Rafale makes extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) in the form of paints and other materials, Dassault engineers have said. RAM forms a saw-toothed pattern on the wing and canard trailing edges, for instance. The aircraft is designed to so that its untreated radar signature is concentrated in a few strong "spikes," which are then suppressed by the selective use of RAM.

Spectra's active jamming subsystem uses phased-array antennas located at the roots of the canards. Dassault has stated that the EW transmit antennas can produce a pencil beam compatible with the accuracy of the receiver system, concentrating power on the threat while minimizing the chances of detection.

But there is more to Spectra than conventional jamming. Pierre-Yves Chaltiel, a Thales engineer on the Spectra program, remarked in a 1997 interview that Spectra uses "stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible... There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real LO [low-observable] aircraft." When asked if he was talking about active cancellation, Chaltiel declined to answer.

Earlier this year, Thales and European missile-builder MBDA disclosed that they were working on active-cancellation technology for cruise missiles and had already tested it on a small unmanned aerial vehicle, using a combination of active and passive techniques to manage radar signature. This revelation makes it considerably more likely that active cancellation is already being developed for Rafale.

Active cancellation is a LO technique in which the aircraft, when painted by a radar, transmits a signal which mimics the echo that the radar will receive - but one half-wavelength out of phase, so that the radar sees no return at all. The advantage of this technique is that it uses very low power, compared with conventional EW, and provides no clues to the aircraft's presence; the challenge is that it requires very fast processing and that poorly executed active cancellation could make the target more rather than less visible.

The complexity of active cancellation could account for Spectra's high price tag, estimated in 1997 as "several billion francs" (equivalent to the high hundreds of millions of US dollars) for research and development. One of four Rafale prototypes was dedicated to Spectra tests, along with a Falcon 20 flying testbed. Four new large anechoic chambers were built to support the Spectra project, including one which is large and well equipped enough to operate the complete system in a fully detailed electromagnetic environment.
Rafale, Dassault-Breguet

Fine lets get back to spada.
 
.
Hello ma'am ! :wave:

Hows the Hubby & the Little Angel ? How are you ? :)

They are both fine. As am I, husband is away so I have my hands full with lil Angel.

My question is that, in your opinion, is that because of :

(i) Purely Restraint Constraints

Or that it could be because of some (ii) Doctrinal Thinking whereby Long-Range SAMs are not considered a useful addition enough to defend Pakistani Airspace due to their vulnerability to Anti-Radiation Missiles, our inability to get them from anyone but China, our extremely scarce resources & the knowledge that their acquisition would come with an opportunity cost which would see some other platform (or Project) scrapped because of limited funds available !

Could it be so that the Military Thinkers believe that the benefits that a full-fledged well integrated Air Defense System would not be able to provide the same benefit, even if the costs weren't so prohibitively high, that it justifies putting other Projects on hold & that a mix of Interceptors & AWACs along with Ground Radar Cover would be able to serve us better & still free the funds for other Projects ?

Thank You, much obliged ! :)

If you think about the origin of anti-air weapons and go back to the French revolutionary wars when hot air balloons were used for observing enemy troop movements. Hot air balloons gave battlefield commanders a bird eye view of the battlefield and it was a game changer until the enemy decided to use sharpshooters to take down the balloon. This was the first anti-air weapon. A new capability had been introduced and the enemy worked hard to counter it.

Fast forward to the cold war, the U2 a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft allowed the US to peek behind the iron curtain. Obviously the Russians were upset and worked very hard to counter this threat by introducing lethal surface to air missiles. You probably heard of Gary Powers the first U2 pilot shot down over Russian airspace.

The Russian air defense focus in the early days was long range detection and high altitude engagement using high speed surface to air missiles. Later, in Vietnam the Russians learnt that the US successfully negated the long range, high attitude SAM by flying low. So once again the Russians came up with quick reaction systems to counter low flying threats.


Obviously, these SAMS and IADS continue to remain too expensive to cover an entire nations airspace even countries as small as Japan have gaps in coverage that can be exploited. Pakistan military do not intend to cover every square inch of its territory but instead choose to defend strategic assets such as air bases, large fuel depot or key government institutions. This approach is pragmatic and effective, the rest of the inbound threats can be handled by the conventional methods successfully employed since WWII that is long range detection and interception by fighters. Remember intrusion by enemy aircraft and destruction of some civilian or military less important assets is acceptable in war. The defenders focus and limited resources must be reserved for protecting what is important to the nation and preserve the nations war fighting capability.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom