What's new

Pakistan’s PL-15 Missile Equipped JF-17 Block 3 is a Serious Game Changer - How India Can Respond to

This rare scenario doesn't change the methodology of the future air wars.
In a high intensity war between let's say China and USA, the BVR missiles will only be usefull at the early beginning. Why? because after that the density of electronic counter measures, and the fact that it will be difficult to know who is ally and who is foe will require a positive identification, ie a visual confirmation before opening the fire. ie max 30 or 40km. It is what I think.
 
.
In a high intensity war between let's say China and USA, the BVR missiles will only be usefull at the early beginning. Why? because after that the density of electronic counter measures, and the fact that it will be difficult to know who is ally and who is foe will require a positive identification, ie a visual confirmation before opening the fire. ie max 30 or 40km. It is what I think.

In a high intensity conflict, the situation would be the opposite of what you are describing. The first target for both sides would be to "blind" each other, so the first targets will be C4ISR (so all your electronics). Whichever sides accomplishes this in whichever theater, will achieve air supremacy. Combined US, Japan and Australia have a lot more electronics than the Chinese. That's just a fact. The scenario that you've put out with "positive identification" is very little compared to a strategic war that will first be fought around destroying the other party's electronic and computers capability.
 
.
In a high intensity conflict, the situation would be the opposite of what you are describing. The first target for both sides would be to "blind" each other, so the first targets will be C4ISR (so all your electronics). Whichever sides accomplishes this in whichever theater, will achieve air supremacy. Combined US, Japan and Australia have a lot more electronics than the Chinese. That's just a fact. The scenario that you've put out with "positive identification" is very little compared to a strategic war that will first be fought around destroying the other party's electronic and computers capability.
The chinese are well equipped to destroy US and its ally electronic capacity.
As they are well equipped of low band radars so as to vanished the stealth aircraft so call asset.
Never forget that US army already made some mistakes. BVR nearly only tactic may be the next.
 
.
The chinese are well equipped to destroy US and its ally electronic capacity.
As they are well equipped of low band radars so as to vanished the stealth aircraft so call asset.
Never forget that US army already made some mistakes. BVR nearly only tactic may be the next.


I am debating with you but it doesn't look like you have command over the issues you keep bringing up. Low band radars can't "vanish" the stealth jets. You need an equally powerful system in a Jet and then, in a missile too and that don't exist. The very few certain radars might "see" the stealth plane but if your fighters can't see them, what good is that? The stealth fights would still fire at you first and take you out way before you can see it.
Next, you mixed strategic issues with "mistakes the US army made", and that post also tells me you are one of the keyboard warriors on here. Anyway, this is my final post with you. Ciao.
 
.
I feel like it's time to kill any thread
remotely related to JF17 Or any new inductions in PAF cause they have been discussed to the last nut & bolt on these God Damn Aircrafts
It's becoming so boring & repetitive that now we started slinging dirt at each other & discussing China US relationship in these threads just to keep the discussion alive with some members occasionally spicing things up with bullcrap such as EAST/WEST
This forum is fast losing its credibility & it's true essence
 
.
I am debating with you but it doesn't look like you have command over the issues you keep bringing up. Low band radars can't "vanish" the stealth jets. You need an equally powerful system in a Jet and then, in a missile too and that don't exist. The very few certain radars might "see" the stealth plane but if your fighters can't see them, what good is that? The stealth fights would still fire at you first and take you out way before you can see it.
Next, you mixed strategic issues with "mistakes the US army made", and that post also tells me you are one of the keyboard warriors on here. Anyway, this is my final post with you. Ciao.
Low band radars as multistatic ones are not precise enought to guide a semi active missile, but enough for a missile seeker to hang the target.
After all a F117 was destroy like that.
As all the US people, you always thought you are over the others... you are another average american.
I feel like it's time to kill any thread
remotely related to JF17 Or any new inductions in PAF cause they have been discussed to the last nut & bolt on these God Damn Aircrafts
It's becoming so boring & repetitive that now we started slinging dirt at each other & discussing China US relationship in these threads just to keep the discussion alive with some members occasionally spicing things up with bullcrap such as EAST/WEST
This forum is fast losing its credibility & it's true essence
7 posts.... close you mouth and watch.
 
.
I am debating with you but it doesn't look like you have command over the issues you keep bringing up. Low band radars can't "vanish" the stealth jets. You need an equally powerful system in a Jet and then, in a missile too and that don't exist. The very few certain radars might "see" the stealth plane but if your fighters can't see them, what good is that? The stealth fights would still fire at you first and take you out way before you can see it.
Next, you mixed strategic issues with "mistakes the US army made", and that post also tells me you are one of the keyboard warriors on here. Anyway, this is my final post with you. Ciao.

Low band radars as multistatic ones are not precise enought to guide a semi active missile, but enough for a missile seeker to hang the target.
After all a F117 was destroy like that.
As all the US people, you always thought you are over the others... you are another average american.

7 posts.... close you mouth and watch.

Tricky question no one really knows. US and Japan have more military technology sophistication than China even though we are catching up. The main stealth advantage which US hold is part of its breaking into the 5th generation and its philosophy of how to fight the type of war it wants to fight. In reverse position defending from attack, China's aim was to counter stealth as much as possible and the conclusion was it is impossible to do well because like fighter vs SAM problem, the SAM always lose because the fighter has the choice of how to fight. Simplifying it but this is the same with stealth problem. The reason for more stealth fighters and focus on stealth fighters is because it works so well.

Some ground radar and we can call methods of defeating stealth involve integration of multiple sensor nodes based on different types with purpose within this network. For example there will be one particular type of frequency placed here and in other specific locations they need different types. In a combined effect, with what some long ago already said in public as software solution to perform optimizing of this effort and machine learning to keep improving the algorithm, it is possible to detect stealth from long enough away. The problem is the fighters require networked engagement which is not easy to do with such a large network. Between a ship and a fighter or AWACS and fighter is different to a whole network of radars with many layers of algorithms to fighter and then to missile.

Both the fighter and missile cannot detect until too close. The network cannot move around quick enough and is always requiring defending. This solution is good and works but you can see how it is not so useful. For now the best way of countering stealth is playing the same game. Until single radars and missiles can increase detection and engagement range to far enough, there is no easy way to deal with stealth.

Short range is still important but definitely less important than in the past unless electronic attack methods have not improved much which is quite unlikely. Now I think they can all suppress missiles signatures until very close and make the ability to avoid being shot much harder than it was previously.
 
.
Low band radars as multistatic ones are not precise enought to guide a semi active missile, but enough for a missile seeker to hang the target.
After all a F117 was destroy like that.
As all the US people, you always thought you are over the others... you are another average american.

So in the past 26 years of using Stealth jets in operations, one Gen 1 F-117 was shot down......(literally out of thousands of operations). So nations should spend billions on AD radar acquisitions hoping they'd down "another" stealth jet so you can give examples of? And no, I don't think I am over others. We are discuss highly specialized and technical issues.........if I didn't know something, I'd ask someone. Won't try to make myself sound like a champion with wrong questions. We all come here and on other sites to share and learn.
 
.
Tricky question no one really knows. US and Japan have more military technology sophistication than China even though we are catching up. The main stealth advantage which US hold is part of its breaking into the 5th generation and its philosophy of how to fight the type of war it wants to fight. In reverse position defending from attack, China's aim was to counter stealth as much as possible and the conclusion was it is impossible to do well because like fighter vs SAM problem, the SAM always lose because the fighter has the choice of how to fight. Simplifying it but this is the same with stealth problem. The reason for more stealth fighters and focus on stealth fighters is because it works so well.

Some ground radar and we can call methods of defeating stealth involve integration of multiple sensor nodes based on different types with purpose within this network. For example there will be one particular type of frequency placed here and in other specific locations they need different types. In a combined effect, with what some long ago already said in public as software solution to perform optimizing of this effort and machine learning to keep improving the algorithm, it is possible to detect stealth from long enough away. The problem is the fighters require networked engagement which is not easy to do with such a large network. Between a ship and a fighter or AWACS and fighter is different to a whole network of radars with many layers of algorithms to fighter and then to missile.

Both the fighter and missile cannot detect until too close. The network cannot move around quick enough and is always requiring defending. This solution is good and works but you can see how it is not so useful. For now the best way of countering stealth is playing the same game. Until single radars and missiles can increase detection and engagement range to far enough, there is no easy way to deal with stealth.

Short range is still important but definitely less important than in the past unless electronic attack methods have not improved much which is quite unlikely. Now I think they can all suppress missiles signatures until very close and make the ability to avoid being shot much harder than it was previously.
In case of a ww3 scenario (without nukes !) the density of electronic counter measures will be so high... and their will be so many birds, ally and foe, in the sky in the same location that my pronostic is that it will be harsh to be sure not to destroy an ally. So instead of "long range" BVR, we will see a optical range BVR and short range fights (ie 10km to 40km max).
So in the past 26 years of using Stealth jets in operations, one Gen 1 F-117 was shot down......(literally out of thousands of operations). So nations should spend billions on AD radar acquisitions hoping they'd down "another" stealth jet so you can give examples of? And no, I don't think I am over others. We are discuss highly specialized and technical issues.........if I didn't know something, I'd ask someone. Won't try to make myself sound like a champion with wrong questions. We all come here and on other sites to share and learn.
We can't use the fights since Desert Shield (and even Desert Shield was so imbalance in the air...) because low intensity and fights between a world top air force and nearly nothing (as the french in Lybia).
One F117 lost against an "army" without fighter is already too much.
A conflict between USA and China will be incomparably harder, at an extent we probably can't imagine.
Some decades ago we thought GPS signal can't be corrupted. It is a reality now (just an exemple), So I'm very careful with certain certainties.
 
Last edited:
.
I feel like it's time to kill any thread
remotely related to JF17 Or any new inductions in PAF cause they have been discussed to the last nut & bolt on these God Damn Aircrafts
It's becoming so boring & repetitive that now we started slinging dirt at each other & discussing China US relationship in these threads just to keep the discussion alive with some members occasionally spicing things up with bullcrap such as EAST/WEST
This forum is fast losing its credibility & it's true essence
MODs should warn members if they start going on tangents. The subject matter of any thread should be discussed ONLY.
 
. .
Pl 15 equipped JF 17 is a serious game changer but I derby equipped Tejas Mk1 or Meteor Equipped Rafale is not a game changer. Cheers.
 
. . .
Wouldnt the range on the pl15 be limited considering how the klj7a aesa radar has a range of 200km(?) and the missile has 300km
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom