SU-30's Cobra Maneuvers - A Treat for PAF Shaheen

[SBD-3]

I guess paritosh s views might change after hearing this "Phlacon to tower (mayday,mayday we ve been hit going down want SAR)"

 

[paritosh]

I don't relish internet arguments, I hate them but sometimes I have to say my piece. You said you don't speculate but you are indeed speculating, unless you have access to InAF strategies and tactics.

I did not speculate a scenario where the mig-21 would totally whoop the f-16s a$$...I was merely pointing out to be it being more comfortably used for a dangerous mission that involves BVR combat than the MKI...owing just to it's small RCS factor...which is an obvious fact.
MKI:
# Length: 21.935 m (72.97 ft)
# Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.2 ft)
# Height: 6.36 m (20.85 ft)
# Wing area: 62.0 m² (667 ft&#178
Mig-21:
# Length: 15.76 (with pitot) m (51 ft 8.47 in)
# Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 5.66 in)
# Height: 4.1 m (13 ft 5.41 in)
# Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft&#178
I don't know what you are getting cocky about.
now before you tell me that the RCS depends on other factors as well and that shaping is important and that the Mig-21 has zero RAMs and composites and all...the RCS of the MKI is greater than the bison is a fact.I want to know if we disagree on that.

I want to argue the fact that no matter how stealthy you claim the upgraded MiG-21 is, in the real world it is not stealthy at all and it will be detected from hundreds of miles away. It doesn't matter what that American pilot said, a MiG-21 is the opposite of "stealthy".

a mig-21 is a junk plane as you know it...but the Bisons have some serious upgrades...
MiG-21 Bison [www.bharat-rakshak.com]
the least you can do is go through this link and I am sure you'd understand that there are some credible differences than the other migs and f-7s...
It is totally upto you to not consider whatever you heard about the Bison....as long as you don't want to turn a blind eye towards the facts of itall.

So as soon as the enemy AWACS realises an FT-2000 missile is on its way it will be forced to switch off its radar and move out of rangeThis means the enemy air force has many minutes of zero AWACS support, enough for a counter-attack to be launched against it. Hell, anything with an active radar or radar jammer can be targeted and either be brought down or forced to retreat.

no need to move out of range...a passive missile would feed on the radiation that the enemy radar/radars emit...so once the emission stops the awacs would turn invisible...to atleast the anti-radiation missile.

Not only that, because the entire FT-2000 system is passive, the enemy air force cannot target it with anti-radiation missiles.
Overhyped? Not really.

where do you get such ideas?
an anti-radiation missile is not a chinese innovation nor is the FT-2000 a unique anti-radiation missile...the whole AWACS killer thing is for publicity...I have read about this missile and haven't seen anything too great in it's specifications.
as far as it not being detected is concerned...it's mere existence in the open skies would be enough for it to be detected...an AWACS is a powerful radar source...and you don't necessarily need to emit radiation to get detected...as long as incident radiation bounces-off it..the missile will be detected.
even if it somehow manages to not get detected by this method...the IR warning sensors would definitely get an IR signature from it's exhaust.basically...the active radars aboard the phalcon keep on frequency-hoping so as not to give a frequency lock to missiles.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Without getting into any technical stuff
please do not call Mig 21 junk.
In any form and manner Mig 21 is one of the best planes conceived
and the largest produced airplane.

And there is nothing no one can say or do about that.

 

[SBD-3]

I have read about this missile and haven't seen anything too great in it's specifications.

What is your perception of greatness?

 

[Arsalan]

What is your perception of greatness?

it must be made in india or made for india!!
baharat mata ke jay hooooo!!!!

regards!

 

[paritosh]

What is your perception of greatness?

for a missile?
totally invincible....stealthy...fast...agile...
like the AGM-88 HARM
AGM-88 HARM (high-speed antiradiation missile) - Smart Weapons
try to figure out it's specs on your own.

 

[SBD-3]

for a missile?
totally invincible....stealthy...fast...agile...
like the AGM-88 HARM
AGM-88 HARM (high-speed antiradiation missile) - Smart Weapons
try to figure out it's specs on your own.

Well i Think your comparing apples with oranges

Air-to-Ground
AGM (Air to Ground Missile)-88 Harm is an AG missile
FT-2000 is a SA missile

 

[hj786]

I was merely pointing out to be it being more comfortably used for a dangerous mission that involves BVR combat than the MKI...owing just to it's small RCS factor...which is an obvious fact.
a mig-21 is a junk plane as you know it...but the Bisons have some serious upgrades...
the least you can do is go through this link and I am sure you'd understand that there are some credible differences than the other migs and f-7s...
It is totally upto you to not consider whatever you heard about the Bison....as long as you don't want to turn a blind eye towards the facts of itall.

You are arguing that because a MiG-21 has a smaller radar signature than an Su-30, the MiG-21 is more suited to a certain purpose but you can't prove it. This is conjecture and therefore, you are speculating.
The fact is it doesn't matter if its signature is smaller, it still has a huge signature and will be detected almost as easily as the Su-30.
I'm not the one being cocky here and don't give me links to BR.

no need to move out of range...a passive missile would feed on the radiation that the enemy radar/radars emit...so once the emission stops the awacs would turn invisible...to atleast the anti-radiation missile.

How can an AWACS perform its role without switching on its radar?

where do you get such ideas?
an anti-radiation missile is not a chinese innovation nor is the FT-2000 a unique anti-radiation missile...the whole AWACS killer thing is for publicity...I have read about this missile and haven't seen anything too great in it's specifications.

Ideas?
HQ-12 (FT-2000) (China) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems

HQ-12 (FT-2000) (China), Defensive weapons

Type
Short- and medium-range, ground-based, solid propellant, theatre defence missiles.

Development
The Chinese developed a surface-to-air missile system specifically for use against airborne early warning, command and control, and ECM aircraft. From the shape and size of the missile, it appears to be an amalgamation of Russian Buk-M1 (SA-11 'Gadfly'), Ural/Buk-2M (SA-17 'Grizzly') and S-300 (SA-10 'Grumble') missiles. The missile can be lofted to search for jammers and AEW aircraft.

fas.org - HQ-9

The FT-2000 surface-to-air anti-radiation missile is the first large surface-to-air anti-radiation missile in the world. It is said to be based on a marriage of the SA-10 and the US Patriot track-via-missile seeker. While the association of the HQ-9 and the FT-2000 remains unclear, the two programs appear to share remarkably similar development histories, and the FT-2000 capabilities are consistent with the employment of the HQ-9 missile without the evidently problematic tracking radar. Its broadband passive radar target seeker can detect the electromagnetic emmanations from the adversary early warning and electronic jamming planes and shoot them down by tracing signals. Since the missile has a passive homing system which does not transmit electromagnetic waves, the possibility of being discovered by the enemy is greatly minimized. Its 12-100 kilometer slant range also ensures that it can strike at long range. The FT-2000 has become the focus of attention in Taiwan, given the concern that this missile will pose a serious threat to Taiwan's US-made E-2T early warning planes.

MissileThreat :: FT-2000

In a report to Congress on May 28, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense highlighted the major improvements that China has made to its air and missile defense systems over the past few years, including “[the] development of an antiradiation SAM [surface-to-air missile], most likely intended to target AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System] aircraft and standoff jamming platforms.”(1)

The report was referring specifically to the FT-2000, a Chinese anti-radiation surface-to-air missile system designed to counter electronic jamming aircraft, AWACS aircraft, and other air radiation wave targets.

HongQi 9 (HQ-9) Surface-to-Air Missile System - SinoDefence.com

In 1998 CPMIEC revealed a unique anti-radiation surface-to-air missile system FT-2000, which was designed engage airborne warning and control system (AWACS) and other electronic warfare aircraft at long ranges. Based on the HongQi 9 design, the FT-2000 is fitted with a passive radar-homing seeker

Where did I say an ARM is a Chinese innovation?
Why would I care what you think about its specifications?
Yes, the FT-2000 is indeed a unique system because according to this source:
fas.org - HQ-9

The FT-2000 surface-to-air anti-radiation missile is the first large surface-to-air anti-radiation missile in the world.

as far as it not being detected is concerned...it's mere existence in the open skies would be enough for it to be detected...an AWACS is a powerful radar source...and you don't necessarily need to emit radiation to get detected...as long as incident radiation bounces-off it..the missile will be detected.
even if it somehow manages to not get detected by this method...the IR warning sensors would definitely get an IR signature from it's exhaust.basically...the active radars aboard the phalcon keep on frequency-hoping so as not to give a frequency lock to missiles.

Great, so the phalcon will detect ARMs incoming, switch off its radar and either:
- Stay in the area with its radar switched off, making it completely useless
- Move out of range and switch its radar on, making it useless for a small period of time.

If you read my post properly, you will find that my point was this: how will the FT-2000 launch sites be detected and destroyed by enemy ARMs if they are passive? How is the system over-hyped?

 

[paritosh]

You are arguing that because a MiG-21 has a smaller radar signature than an Su-30, the MiG-21 is more suited to a certain purpose but you can't prove it. This is conjecture and therefore, you are speculating.
The fact is it doesn't matter if its signature is smaller, it still has a huge signature and will be detected almost as easily as the Su-30.
I'm not the one being cocky here and don't give me links to BR.

hj786 mate...I don't think this discussion is doing us any good.
if you want me to give you the exact 'grease-penciled' RCS of the two fighters...and all the other apparent factors like smaller size..smaller X-sectional area...the statements of USAF,etc...amount to speculation...then this is a debate...both of us should save ourselves from getting into.
about the BR link....you should have seriously checked it out...it wasn't from blogs neither had any sort of propaganda...I have been on this forum for a long time...I am careful with my references.That link just had pictures taken by someone I know...highlighting the physical modifications of the mig owing to the Bison upgrade.I expect someone of your caliber to easily spot them and hence understand what I was talking about.

How can an AWACS perform its role without switching on its radar?

no it cannot...evasive maneuver...and that too only if the FT gets a frequency lock...which is difficult as all modern AWACS perform by frequency hopping...yet it is not completely fool-proof as there is known bandwidth in which they work...but nonetheless...it is very difficult to get a constant frequency lock if the PRf of the AWACS radar is high enough(definitely in the Phalcon)..and hence it's hops are more frequent and appear less redundant.

Ideas?
HQ-12 (FT-2000) (China) - Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems


fas.org - HQ-9


MissileThreat :: FT-2000


HongQi 9 (HQ-9) Surface-to-Air Missile System - SinoDefence.com

seen them links you posted.
but What is that you want to talk about?
I will list some points that we can debate the missiles effectiveness on viz-a-viz other sams or anti-radiation missiles.
->stealth
->range
->speed
->maneuverability
->masking of the exhaust plume
->guidance system
all passive systems are many times more stealthy than active ones...simple reason...they feed on radiation emitted in the form of em waves by the huge and powerful radars of AWACS and other radars they are directed against...
but even then...once they are fired and reach a certain threshold height(depends on the power/beam-width of the look-down radar aboard the AWACS) they are detected by the awacs...which can guide it's fighter envelope to destroy the same missile/or atleast predict it's flight path and take evasive action...by shutting down it's radar momentarily.

it's range of a hundred kms...is good but you forget the fact that we share a common border...so the AWACS can work out of the range of the FT-2000 a fact that most people would keep in mind..

a passive missile can be detected just like any other missile by it's exhaust's thermal signature...IR warning sensors aboard most planes give an indication of the missile.

Great, so the phalcon will detect ARMs incoming, switch off its radar and either:
- Stay in the area with its radar switched off, making it completely useless
- Move out of range and switch its radar on, making it useless for a small period of time.

If you read my post properly, you will find that my point was this: how will the FT-2000 launch sites be detected and destroyed by enemy ARMs if they are passive? How is the system over-hyped?

I was thinking you'd ask.
the point of contention is how would the people manning the AWACS know that it's an ARM...as if they don't switch-off their radars and change their flight-path...they'd be toast if the missile is not killed in time.
a normal radar guided SAM has an active seeker...that emits either microwaves or laser beam(for short range sams as laser is too vulnerable to the environment for being effective at long ranges)
the SAM is guided in stages...in the initial stage..it's inital trajectory is set by the ground based radar...and it's guided by it...which is also the case with your FT-2000 or any other anti-radiation missile in the world...
the difference between conventional SAMs and the Ft...comes in the second phase...when the target gets within the terminal homing range of the seeker of the missile...for active seeker SAMs this range is larger...which has the advantage of making the missile more accurate as the missile actuator-to-seeker guidance relationship is much more precise than that to the ground-based radar....the reason being...that em/radio/laser travel at the speed of light which is finite and delays are caused in the transit time of guidance information via the aforementioned media...thus the on-board seeker-to-actuator relationship is much more crisp.
so more the terminal homing range...more accurate the missile...the more adjustable the missile to evasive maneuvers of the target aircraft.
now comes the good part about being a passive SAM...
as the missile comes withing it's comparatively shorter terminal homing range(the passive seeker generates absolutely no radiation of it's own..needs to be sufficiently close to the target to feed intelligently on it's radiation for high precision during the short window time of it's penultimate path adjustment/correction)...the passive seeker switches on...it's contribution to the em mesh is zero...it is stealthy....it's detectable range is very short...as only the bounced-off incident radiation gives it away.
the system is over-hyped as it is labeled as the "AWACS killer"...which IMO is a marketing ploy.
by that I don't mean that it can't kill an AWACS..it is capable...but nothing different from the other western/russian SAMs....the S-400 is IMO the best SAM available...the patriot system is a not-so-distant second....the israeli arrow is very god too...
the reason..an active seeker missile is not overtly dependent on the radar of the target...nor on it's ground-based guidance radar(atleast not for the major part of it's flight)

 

[SQ8]

Really found the AGM-88 vs the Chinese AWACS killer comparison pointless.
Even the fastest moving SAM Vehicles hit 70Kph. So you target one.. its turns off its radar.. and then there is the complicated problem of knowing its last poition and track to hit it.
Now here is the FT-2k and its a SAM, so it first has to climb to altitude to intercept a moving target at 400knots. Which can go pretty much anywhere. Not to mention that while the HARM is slung on a rail in a pretty mobile jet. This thing is static. so all the target has to do is to tempt it airborne and get out of its range or just stay out of its range. Pretty ineffective, to me anyway.
The only proper way to kill an AWACS is either by firing 4 or more long range AAM's in the hope that one might make it through the ECM, Countermeasures and maneuvering.. or by some brave nutcase who somehow makes it to WVR of the thing on a suicide mission and takes it out(what happens to him next is upto God).

On a side note, this discussion isn't going anywhere, nobody is ready to concede ground, and the ground to concede is itself a muddled place.

 

[paritosh]

Well i Think your comparing apples with oranges

Air-to-Ground
AGM (Air to Ground Missile)-88 Harm is an AG missile
FT-2000 is a SA missile

hasnain0099....again you misquote me!
I am not comparing anything to anything...I like the AGM-88 HARM...doesnt mean that I like it over the FT...
there other comparative SAMs I have listed in my last post..what are your views about them?

 

[Arsalan]

hasnain0099....again you misquote me!
I am not comparing anything to anything...I like the AGM-88 HARM...doesnt mean that I like it over the FT...
there other comparative SAMs I have listed in my last post..what are your views about them?

well i like Airbus A380,,, can i also discuss it here!!

 

[hj786]

Really found the AGM-88 vs the Chinese AWACS killer comparison pointless.
Even the fastest moving SAM Vehicles hit 70Kph. So you target one.. its turns off its radar.. and then there is the complicated problem of knowing its last poition and track to hit it.
Now here is the FT-2k and its a SAM, so it first has to climb to altitude to intercept a moving target at 400knots. Which can go pretty much anywhere. Not to mention that while the HARM is slung on a rail in a pretty mobile jet. This thing is static. so all the target has to do is to tempt it airborne and get out of its range or just stay out of its range. Pretty ineffective, to me anyway.
The only proper way to kill an AWACS is either by firing 4 or more long range AAM's in the hope that one might make it through the ECM, Countermeasures and maneuvering.. or by some brave nutcase who somehow makes it to WVR of the thing on a suicide mission and takes it out(what happens to him next is upto God).
On a side note, this discussion isn't going anywhere, nobody is ready to concede ground, and the ground to concede is itself a muddled place.

It seems to me that the FT-2000 system is designed to keep enemy EW and AWACS aircraft as far from friendly territory and bases of operations as possible, not simply to kill them. Sure they'll see missiles coming and they'll get out of range, isn't that the whole point?
Their main advantage seems to be that the entire system is passive, so the only way to find and destroy it is using reconnaissance imagery and precision guided munitions - isn't that a lot of effort just to kill one lousy SAM launcher?
If you know your AWACS/SIGINT aircraft is going to get shot at beyond a certain point, aren't you going to keep it back?

hj786 mate...I don't think this discussion is doing us any good. if you want me to give you the exact 'grease-penciled' RCS of the two fighters...

I agree, the bison is no ordinary MiG-21. That Kopyo radar has an antenna diameter of 50 cm; to put that into perspective, the JF-17 antenna diameter is about 60 cm. The F-7PG antenna diameter is about 30-35 cm. I just don't like BR, for obvious reasons.
I was making the point that the bison's "advantage" in radar signature is so small its insignificant, so I don't see how it can be so much better suited at the role you mentioned. That's all I'm saying.

no it cannot...evasive maneuver...and that too only if the FT gets a frequency lock...which is difficult as all modern AWACS perform by frequency hopping...yet it is not completely fool-proof as there is known bandwidth in which they work...but nonetheless...it is very difficult to get a constant frequency lock if the PRf of the AWACS radar is high enough(definitely in the Phalcon)..and hence it's hops are more frequent and appear less redundant.

seen them links you posted.
but What is that you want to talk about?
I will list some points that we can debate the missiles effectiveness on viz-a-viz other sams or anti-radiation missiles.
->stealth
->range
->speed
->maneuverability
->masking of the exhaust plume
->guidance system
all passive systems are many times more stealthy than active ones...simple reason...they feed on radiation emitted in the form of em waves by the huge and powerful radars of AWACS and other radars they are directed against...
but even then...once they are fired and reach a certain threshold height(depends on the power/beam-width of the look-down radar aboard the AWACS) they are detected by the awacs...which can guide it's fighter envelope to destroy the same missile/or atleast predict it's flight path and take evasive action...by shutting down it's radar momentarily.

it's range of a hundred kms...is good but you forget the fact that we share a common border...so the AWACS can work out of the range of the FT-2000 a fact that most people would keep in mind..

a passive missile can be detected just like any other missile by it's exhaust's thermal signature...IR warning sensors aboard most planes give an indication of the missile.


I was thinking you'd ask.
the point of contention is how would the people manning the AWACS know that it's an ARM...as if they don't switch-off their radars and change their flight-path...they'd be toast if the missile is not killed in time.
a normal radar guided SAM has an active seeker...that emits either microwaves or laser beam(for short range sams as laser is too vulnerable to the environment for being effective at long ranges)
the SAM is guided in stages...in the initial stage..it's inital trajectory is set by the ground based radar...and it's guided by it...which is also the case with your FT-2000 or any other anti-radiation missile in the world...
the difference between conventional SAMs and the Ft...comes in the second phase...when the target gets within the terminal homing range of the seeker of the missile...for active seeker SAMs this range is larger...which has the advantage of making the missile more accurate as the missile actuator-to-seeker guidance relationship is much more precise than that to the ground-based radar....the reason being...that em/radio/laser travel at the speed of light which is finite and delays are caused in the transit time of guidance information via the aforementioned media...thus the on-board seeker-to-actuator relationship is much more crisp.
so more the terminal homing range...more accurate the missile...the more adjustable the missile to evasive maneuvers of the target aircraft.
now comes the good part about being a passive SAM...
as the missile comes withing it's comparatively shorter terminal homing range(the passive seeker generates absolutely no radiation of it's own..needs to be sufficiently close to the target to feed intelligently on it's radiation for high precision during the short window time of it's penultimate path adjustment/correction)...the passive seeker switches on...it's contribution to the em mesh is zero...it is stealthy....it's detectable range is very short...as only the bounced-off incident radiation gives it away.
the system is over-hyped as it is labeled as the "AWACS killer"...which IMO is a marketing ploy.
by that I don't mean that it can't kill an AWACS..it is capable...but nothing different from the other western/russian SAMs....the S-400 is IMO the best SAM available...the patriot system is a not-so-distant second....the israeli arrow is very god too...
the reason..an active seeker missile is not overtly dependent on the radar of the target...nor on it's ground-based guidance radar(atleast not for the major part of it's flight)

Your point about the modern AESA radars of an AWACS having advanced frequency hopping and "low probability of intercept" capability is important - the the thing I'm not sure about is whether the FT-2000 system can actually track an AWACS and at what range. If it can do so at a decent range then I think it could be an effective system, but I agree, still limited in terms of "will it actually kill the AWACS?" Something tells me it can't be so successful at tracking AWACS radars and if this is the case, then I guess I agree that calling it an "AWACS killer" is indeed a marketing ploy.
I guess my main argument is that because the system is passive, the launchers on the ground can't be easily detected and destroyed, unlike normal SAM systems. Again, modern SAMs have advanced radars that may not be so easy to lock ARMs onto, but I guess that's beyond the scope of this discussion and I don't have any knowledge on that topic. But if this system can effectively track emitting targets like fighters, it could be extremely effective simply because it is so difficult to locate due to its passive tracking method. In this case I think it would be a very dangerous system and not over-hyped at all if marketed as such.

 

[paritosh]

I agree, the bison is no ordinary MiG-21. That Kopyo radar has an antenna diameter of 50 cm; to put that into perspective, the JF-17 antenna diameter is about 60 cm. The F-7PG antenna diameter is about 30-35 cm. I just don't like BR, for obvious reasons.
I was making the point that the bison's "advantage" in radar signature is so small its insignificant, so I don't see how it can be so much better suited at the role you mentioned. That's all I'm saying.

hmm...alright.let's refrain from discussing this part...as I don'tknow what their respective RCSs are...I know this guy Shiv Aroor who happens to be a defense correspondent for a news channel...he once covered the -Bison program...he talked to the IAF people...that is how I so confidently support the mig over the Mki for an awacs killing mission...but I can't do much to prove it.

Your point about the modern AESA radars of an AWACS having advanced frequency hopping and "low probability of intercept" capability is important - the the thing I'm not sure about is whether the FT-2000 system can actually track an AWACS and at what range. If it can do so at a decent range then I think it could be an effective system, but I agree, still limited in terms of "will it actually kill the AWACS?" Something tells me it can't be so successful at tracking AWACS radars and if this is the case, then I guess I agree that calling it an "AWACS killer" is indeed a marketing ploy.
I guess my main argument is that because the system is passive, the launchers on the ground can't be easily detected and destroyed, unlike normal SAM systems. Again, modern SAMs have advanced radars that may not be so easy to lock ARMs onto, but I guess that's beyond the scope of this discussion and I don't have any knowledge on that topic. But if this system can effectively track emitting targets like fighters, it could be extremely effective simply because it is so difficult to locate due to its passive tracking method. In this case I don't think it would be a very dangerous system and not over-hyped at all if marketed as such.

dude..seriously read about the S-400.
It is one of the most SAM systems available today...it's guidance system is killer!
too bad the ruskies don't give it to us...

 

[SBD-3]

dude..seriously read about the S-400.
It is one of the most SAM systems available today...it's guidance system is killer!
too bad the ruskies don't give it to us...

ofcourse they wont
will US give Raptors to any other one?