Sukhoi PAK FA

[zongjie8522]

good thread

 

[p2prada]

The F-117 was shot down due to other reasons than radar. Cross your fingers and hope it hits.

 

[Anshu Attri]

 

[Austin]

The F-117 was shot down due to other reasons than radar. Cross your fingers and hope it hits.

Nopes , you need to read Zoltan Dani interview or just google for his name and you will get more info on it , according to NATO own assesment the the second F-117 was damaged but managed to land

You cant just fire a missile and hope that it hits .

 

[Austin]

p2p , the most significant part of the Kosovo operation was not how the Serbs managed to hit a stealth fighter but how inspite of crushing NATO superiority in Air and the most modern technology available to them , they managed to survive in NATO own assesment Yugoslav Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) survived Operation Allied Force remained intact at the end of the campaign , considering Serbs didnt have any thing better then a 60's IADS involving SA-3 , Strela and SA-6 with few modified P-19 VHF radars

Makes a good read

Revisiting the Lessons of Operation Allied Force
Revisiting the Lessons of Operation Allied Force

Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge

Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge

 

[Sridhar]

Guys kindly discuss F117 shoot down here http://defenceforumindia.com/global-defence/7285-story-behind-f-117-shoot-down.html

 

[p2prada]

@Austin

Gambit explained it already. Sridhar has posted the link.

 

[Austin]

@Austin

Gambit explained it already. Sridhar has posted the link.

Thanks , I saw it like i said shooting the F-117 with the so called Spray and Pray method was just a airy fairy tale , most professional assesment done by NATO have attributed to lack of discipline on their part and some smart and disciplined use of SAM and Radar on the serbs part , else how would one explain the fact that most of Serbs AD and other movable asset remained intact inspite of crushing numerical superiority and atleast 2 generations ahead of technology superiority.

Any ways the RCS of PAK-FA and F-22 is in the range of 0.3 - 0.4 m2 and for the former it was confirmed by its chief designer , those are the average RCS and not a single plane narrow best location figures obtained from frontal direction , and then claims of dramatic 0.001 and 0.0001 figures propogated , the lowest RCS till this date are that of cruise missile.

Any future conflict using PAK-FA will need extensive use of jammers to make the latter penetrate a decent IADS and get out safely ,not to mention good mission planning to avoid known radar spots , in absense of any jamming support a fairly modern IADS would inflict high damage on any mission using LO aircraft , radar too have made dramatic progress and can detect extremely small target at long ranges.

 

[p2prada]

Thanks , I saw it like i said shooting the F-117 with the so called Spray and Pray method was just a airy fairy tale , most professional assesment done by NATO have attributed to lack of discipline on their part and some smart and disciplined use of SAM and Radar on the serbs part , else how would one explain the fact that most of Serbs AD and other movable asset remained intact inspite of crushing numerical superiority and atleast 2 generations ahead of technology superiority.

I haven't followed a detailed description of the Yugoslavia situation, so we will simply leave it at that.

Any ways the RCS of PAK-FA and F-22 is in the range of 0.3 - 0.4 m2 and for the former it was confirmed by its chief designer , those are the average RCS and not a single plane narrow best location figures obtained from frontal direction , and then claims of dramatic 0.001 and 0.0001 figures propogated , the lowest RCS till this date are that of cruise missile.

All these RCS figures have too many variables. Strictly speaking RCS figures are dependent on the Gain of the antenna, Directivity of the antenna, area of antenna, distance between the radar and aircraft, Power transmitted and received, wavelength(or frequency) of the carrier signal. And these aspects are just the measurable elements. Range is a very important aspect and the RCS figures for Russian and American figures would have considered this.

Any future conflict using PAK-FA will need extensive use of jammers to make the latter penetrate a decent IADS and get out safely ,not to mention good mission planning to avoid known radar spots , in absense of any jamming support a fairly modern IADS would inflict high damage on any mission using LO aircraft , radar too have made dramatic progress and can detect extremely small target at long ranges.

I don't think PAKFAs in an air superiority mission will carry any jammers. The emissions will compromise stealth in a way that will allow the enemy to determine a rough position of the aircraft. 4th gen and lower need it because their positions can be mostly determined with radars anyway. The jammers in 5th gen aircraft, as a self protection suite, may not use high powered jammers. They may use very low power jammers in the range of 100-200W. As long as the RCS is below the clutter rejection threshold of radars, the stealth is effective. Jamming won't be required at all. Other than that many radars are capable of tracking the F-22 from 1500Km away as easily as regular aircraft can be tracked.

IAF has recently installed radars to track birds in all air bases upto 50Km(I am guessing about the range). These can track F-22 from that distance. If the radar is mated to a SAM, then the F-22 can be engaged. The only problem is the radar will have to differentiate between the birds and the aircraft or you will unknowingly engage a kite or a sparrow.

 

[Austin]

All these RCS figures have too many variables. Strictly speaking RCS figures are dependent on the Gain of the antenna, Directivity of the antenna, area of antenna, distance between the radar and aircraft, Power transmitted and received, wavelength(or frequency) of the carrier signal. And these aspects are just the measurable elements. Range is a very important aspect and the RCS figures for Russian and American figures would have considered this.

Agreed and there are too many variable , add also the band of the aircraft , most LO are optimised for common X band.

I don't think PAKFAs in an air superiority mission will carry any jammers. The emissions will compromise stealth in a way that will allow the enemy to determine a rough position of the aircraft. 4th gen and lower need it because their positions can be mostly determined with radars anyway. The jammers in 5th gen aircraft, as a self protection suite, may not use high powered jammers. They may use very low power jammers in the range of 100-200W. As long as the RCS is below the clutter rejection threshold of radars, the stealth is effective. Jamming won't be required at all. Other than that many radars are capable of tracking the F-22 from 1500Km away as easily as regular aircraft can be tracked.

How PAK-FA performs its Air Superiority over hostile territory also depends on the sophistication of IADS it faces , put a PAK-FA over Pakistani Territory without Jammer Support it would do reasonably well , put it inside a Chinese territory where it has to face S-300PMU2 ,BUK and Tor with many sophisticated Radars , it would be a tough call to remain alive and fight.

Any thing that emits will eventually get detected by sophisticated ESM both on ground and on air and even PAK-FA will have to emit if it has to use its BVR , at the least one in the fleet of 5 will have to emit and the others will share it via data link.

Fact it you cant do away with Jammers if you are dealing with sophisticated IADS , you will have to degrade your opponent RF ability and his ability to see you further if you want your own low RCS to be effective. Experience shows that during Gulf War US used extensive Jamming from wide asset before the F-117 flew in , same goes for Kosovo conflict when all but one B-2 mission was accompanied with multiple jamming asset , the only one mission did not have any jammer was due to bad weather.

IAF has recently installed radars to track birds in all air bases upto 50Km(I am guessing about the range). These can track F-22 from that distance. If the radar is mated to a SAM, then the F-22 can be engaged. The only problem is the radar will have to differentiate between the birds and the aircraft or you will unknowingly engage a kite or a sparrow.

Most certainly any radar that can detect a low RCS bird flying at Mach 1 and above is certainly not a bird or kite , it can very well be a supersonic missile but if it is coming towards you then you have to engage it.

I am sure F-22 wont be facing the IAF for sure , if it does then we have a problem

 

[p2prada]

Agreed and there are too many variable , add also the band of the aircraft , most LO are optimised for common X band.

Wavelength or frequency includes the band. Frequencies are divided into different bands depending on it's usage.

How PAK-FA performs its Air Superiority over hostile territory also depends on the sophistication of IADS it faces , put a PAK-FA over Pakistani Territory without Jammer Support it would do reasonably well , put it inside a Chinese territory where it has to face S-300PMU2 ,BUK and Tor with many sophisticated Radars , it would be a tough call to remain alive and fight.

The EF-2000 was made to fight the S-300 and S-400 without jammer support. EF would fail though as it is not stealth, but it still has a low RCS. A radar over mountains is very easy to beat. PLA SAM system is currently far superior to our own, but the mountains nullifies range advantages. That's why Akash, a completely inferior SAM compared to the S-300 is deployed in the North East, where range does not matter as much.

Any thing that emits will eventually get detected by sophisticated ESM both on ground and on air and even PAK-FA will have to emit if it has to use its BVR , at the least one in the fleet of 5 will have to emit and the others will share it via data link.

The ESM must be made with even higher quality standards than the PAKFA's radar. Low probability of intercept(LPI) is a feature on almost every military radar. AESA has extremely good levels of LPI capability as compared to other types. As long as PAKFA's emissions don't make sense to the ESM, it is fine. Emissions should be extremely low, jammers are simply asking for trouble because they try to imitate the enemy's signals.

Fact it you cant do away with Jammers if you are dealing with sophisticated IADS , you will have to degrade your opponent RF ability and his ability to see you further if you want your own low RCS to be effective. Experience shows that during Gulf War US used extensive Jamming from wide asset before the F-117 flew in , same goes for Kosovo conflict when all but one B-2 mission was accompanied with multiple jamming asset , the only one mission did not have any jammer was due to bad weather.

I think you are talking about stand off jamming. SOJ needs very high power. What a 3KW jammer could do from 15 Km away, a 20KW jammer will be needed from 50Km away. The only aircraft that can handle this are the USN's Prowler and Growler aircraft and IsAF's G-550 EW aircraft. I don't think anybody else has this capability. Others simply use existing large aircraft like the Israelis do for SOJ in very limited ways, not like the USN. We had two or three Canberras for SOJ until 2006.

An aircraft like PAKFA without special mission equipment cannot do it. They can only carry lesser capable jammers like the EL/M 8222 or SAP-518 perhaps active ESA versions of it. Spectra is capable, but this is again a self protection suite. Nowhere like the Growler.

If we want to disable PLA's air defences then we are going to have to take losses. It would be awesome if we are able to stick multiple SAP-14 jammers on the MKI, but that's asking for too much right now.

Most certainly any radar that can detect a low RCS bird flying at Mach 1 and above is certainly not a bird or kite , it can very well be a supersonic missile but if it is coming towards you then you have to engage it.

I am sure F-22 wont be facing the IAF for sure , if it does then we have a problem

That kind of speed is difficult to track at such small RCS values because of clutter(birds). But it is possible. The speed can be masked using clutter.

 

[Austin]

Wavelength or frequency includes the band. Frequencies are divided into different bands depending on it's usage.

Yes

The EF-2000 was made to fight the S-300 and S-400 without jammer support. EF would fail though as it is not stealth, but it still has a low RCS. A radar over mountains is very easy to beat. PLA SAM system is currently far superior to our own, but the mountains nullifies range advantages. That's why Akash, a completely inferior SAM compared to the S-300 is deployed in the North East, where range does not matter as much.

EF-2000 was made to fight the Su-27 Flanker and out do it in supersonic regimes of flight something its good at , has nothing to do with S-300 or 400.

There are deployment strategies when it comes to SAM and Radar , if they deploy radars that gives a good blind spot and something a smart enemy can use then they have no body than themself to blame , no good weapon can compensate for bad tactics and bad training , on the contrary a old weapon can still over cosome of its deficiencies with good tactics and training something Serbs/Kosovo sam wala has shown.

Akash and S-300 are different class of SAM so no point in comparing them in very cardinal parameter , Akash is broadly comparable to BUK

The ESM must be made with even higher quality standards than the PAKFA's radar. Low probability of intercept(LPI) is a feature on almost every military radar. AESA has extremely good levels of LPI capability as compared to other types. As long as PAKFA's emissions don't make sense to the ESM, it is fine. Emissions should be extremely low, jammers are simply asking for trouble because they try to imitate the enemy's signals.

LPI has the disadvantage that it has its impact on range and most modern RWR/ESM can detect LPI.

I think you are talking about stand off jamming. SOJ needs very high power. What a 3KW jammer could do from 15 Km away, a 20KW jammer will be needed from 50Km away. The only aircraft that can handle this are the USN's Prowler and Growler aircraft and IsAF's G-550 EW aircraft. I don't think anybody else has this capability. Others simply use existing large aircraft like the Israelis do for SOJ in very limited ways, not like the USN. We had two or three Canberras for SOJ until 2006.

Some form of SOJ is needed to provide cover to Stealth Aircraft , the other option is for the LO aircraft to use its own jammer be it DRFM or something else , in case if they do they would announce their presense even if the jammer is effective , its very difficult to jam any modern radar specially the advanced PESA of the type S-300PMU uses or the AESA types like our own we have from Israel.

An aircraft like PAKFA without special mission equipment cannot do it. They can only carry lesser capable jammers like the EL/M 8222 or SAP-518 perhaps active ESA versions of it. Spectra is capable, but this is again a self protection suite. Nowhere like the Growler.

PAK-FA will have its own AESA based jammers of more modern type , i think even if the cover it out and PAK-FA discloses its presense , a jammer would still save the day and would bring it back alive , there are many other qualities in PAK-FA besides its LO

If we want to disable PLA's air defences then we are going to have to take losses. It would be awesome if we are able to stick multiple SAP-14 jammers on the MKI, but that's asking for too much right now.

The only option is to let high capable missile like Brahmos air launched type do the talking , assuming you can actually keep track of their mobile IADS asset be it radar or missile in real time ,may be assisted by AWACS which can do that using ELINT equipment .

It will be a very risky mission to send in PAK-FA without any jammer support in an area defended by S-300PMU2 .BUK class missile without using any stand off missile to do the softning job.

You must appreciate that in Kosovo an enemy with 60's missile and radar majorly was tough nut to crack for NATO with multiple asset outclassing both in number and sophistication and till the last day of NATO mission SAM for considerd as danger.

Now you can appreciate that we are not NATO and neither are the Chinese Serbs , we have good aircraft and they have equally capable IADS so its a tough call.

 

[p2prada]

EF-2000 was made to fight the Su-27 Flanker and out do it in supersonic regimes of flight something its good at , has nothing to do with S-300 or 400.

Agreed. The EF-2000 has more to do with air to air than air to ground. However the point remains the same. The most versatile radar that the EF will face will be from the Flanker and Mig-31. EF does not carry anything to fight those radars.

There are deployment strategies when it comes to SAM and Radar , if they deploy radars that gives a good blind spot and something a smart enemy can use then they have no body than themself to blame , no good weapon can compensate for bad tactics and bad training , on the contrary a old weapon can still over cosome of its deficiencies with good tactics and training something Serbs/Kosovo sam wala has shown.

Agreed.

Akash and S-300 are different class of SAM so no point in comparing them in very cardinal parameter , Akash is broadly comparable to BUK

I was merely comparing the best we have right now to the best the Chinese have.

LPI has the disadvantage that it has its impact on range and most modern RWR/ESM can detect LPI.

LPI has no disadvantages. It has nothing to do with range. LPI is basically ECCM. A frequency hop system is ECCM, and all it does is change frequencies. The frequencies jump only a bit at a time, so range is not affected. Normally all signals in the air can be detected, it is just that the signals of a good LPI system will force the ESM to reject the signals as noise. A better ESM can always reduce that chance, but the radar will also be continuously updated with better computers and software. EW is basically a game of catching up to your opponent.

Some form of SOJ is needed to provide cover to Stealth Aircraft , the other option is for the LO aircraft to use its own jammer be it DRFM or something else , in case if they do they would announce their presense even if the jammer is effective , its very difficult to jam any modern radar specially the advanced PESA of the type S-300PMU uses or the AESA types like our own we have from Israel.

Yeah! Like I mentioned above. EW requires trying to catch up with your opponents signals. It is not easy at all. Jamming is difficult to achieve in real life, that's why dedicated air superiority aircraft don't really need jamming. As for SEAD missions, an aircraft like the Growler can barrage jam the enemy radar. Aircraft typically use X band while ground based radars use L, S or C. It gets easier to apply barrage jamming without affecting the aircraft's radar. But barrage jamming the L band would disable GPS and even the aircraft's communication equipment.

PAK-FA will have its own AESA based jammers of more modern type , i think even if the cover it out and PAK-FA discloses its presense , a jammer would still save the day and would bring it back alive , there are many other qualities in PAK-FA besides its LO

This is very situation specific. Btw, AESA radars have a dedicated EW channel too apart from any other internal jammer or pod mounted jammer. Jamming capability is a good thing to have but cannot be depended on always.

You must appreciate that in Kosovo an enemy with 60's missile and radar majorly was tough nut to crack for NATO with multiple asset outclassing both in number and sophistication and till the last day of NATO mission SAM for considerd as danger.

I guess they got lucky rather than some genius on the parts of the Serbs. F-117 is a brick.

The best way to beat an air defence system is from the ground.

 

[Austin]

LPI has no disadvantages. It has nothing to do with range. LPI is basically ECCM. A frequency hop system is ECCM, and all it does is change frequencies. The frequencies jump only a bit at a time, so range is not affected. Normally all signals in the air can be detected, it is just that the signals of a good LPI system will force the ESM to reject the signals as noise. A better ESM can always reduce that chance, but the radar will also be continuously updated with better computers and software. EW is basically a game of catching up to your opponent.

What you have mentioned is true but LPI radar module uses low power output besides other stuff like the ones you have mentioned , so LPI radar definitely impacts the range , I have read the French RBE2 has lower range ~ 100 km becuase it opted for LPI mode compared to stuff like BARS that has incredible detection range but no LPI modes.

Also the most modern ESM are capable of detecting LPI modes.

Yeah! Like I mentioned above. EW requires trying to catch up with your opponents signals. It is not easy at all. Jamming is difficult to achieve in real life, that's why dedicated air superiority aircraft don't really need jamming. As for SEAD missions, an aircraft like the Growler can barrage jam the enemy radar. Aircraft typically use X band while ground based radars use L, S or C. It gets easier to apply barrage jamming without affecting the aircraft's radar. But barrage jamming the L band would disable GPS and even the aircraft's communication equipment.

Of course Growlers can use barrage jamming and other jamming techniques but you are assuming the ground based radar has no ability to deal with it , most modern radar do have ECM/ECCM modes to deal with jammers and are capable of working under intense jamming environment , in worst case they degrade gracefully , its a cat and mouse game. Jamming those huge S-300 types radar wont be easy even for Growler types and as SOC was mentioning the S-300PMU2 uses SAGG for guidance , if say a growler tries to jam the main radar and degrades its ability to provide accurate data on the aircraft under attack , the S-300PMU2 missile has its own way of calliberating information of the target independent of main radar and in case if main radar is under intense jamming it will use its own data to go for the kill , in normal circumstances SAGG uses computation from Missile and the ground based radar to determine the best possibility to kill the target.

This is very situation specific. Btw, AESA radars have a dedicated EW channel too apart from any other internal jammer or pod mounted jammer. Jamming capability is a good thing to have but cannot be depended on always.

Yeah true , you can use some T/R module for jamming task or even for data communication , but like you said it cannot be dependent always or dependent only in situation when there is no other choice.

I guess they got lucky rather than some genius on the parts of the Serbs. F-117 is a brick.

Well lets assume for time being they got lucky with F-117 , but that still does not explain how majority of their AD system remained intact after nearly 2 and half month of NATO intense air campaign and thats the assesment of NATO own post war analysis , their AD was as dangerous to NATO on the first day as they were on the last and more than 700 HARM was fired as part of SEAD mission , still the only loss for Serbs were some known fixed SA-2/SA-3 sites and 2 mobile SA-6 unit , rest were intact in a campaign that involved 1000 aircraft with multiple asset. You cant get luckly always

 

[p2prada]

What you have mentioned is true but LPI radar module uses low power output besides other stuff like the ones you have mentioned , so LPI radar definitely impacts the range , I have read the French RBE2 has lower range ~ 100 km becuase it opted for LPI mode compared to stuff like BARS that has incredible detection range but no LPI modes.

Also the most modern ESM are capable of detecting LPI modes.

Can you post the material you read because I don't think it is accurate. LPI does not affect range.

The RBE-2 has a small antenna, almost half as compared to Bars. The range the Bars offers has a lot to do with it's very high gain and large area of the antenna. Otherwise the power delivered should be similar.

The Bison's Kopyo-M gives only 75Km even though it is a 5KW radar. The diameter of the antenna is only 500mm. The first version of Bars was less powerful, at 4.5KW, but gave ranges in excess of 130Km for the same target because of the larger antenna and gain.

The Zaslon M should provide even higher capability than the Bars because the antenna diameter is 1400mm compared to 950mm on Bars.

Of course Growlers can use barrage jamming and other jamming techniques but you are assuming the ground based radar has no ability to deal with it , most modern radar do have ECM/ECCM modes to deal with jammers and are capable of working under intense jamming environment , in worst case they degrade gracefully , its a cat and mouse game. Jamming those huge S-300 types radar wont be easy even for Growler types and as SOC was mentioning the S-300PMU2 uses SAGG for guidance , if say a growler tries to jam the main radar and degrades its ability to provide accurate data on the aircraft under attack , the S-300PMU2 missile has its own way of calliberating information of the target independent of main radar and in case if main radar is under intense jamming it will use its own data to go for the kill , in normal circumstances SAGG uses computation from Missile and the ground based radar to determine the best possibility to kill the target.

If Growler does not work against S-300 then nothing will work against it.

This would mean carrying air borne jammers against PLA will be useless. Of course, I don't believe it because even simple solutions can defeat the best radars. The issue is finding that right solution.

Well lets assume for time being they got lucky with F-117 , but that still does not explain how majority of their AD system remained intact after nearly 2 and half month of NATO intense air campaign and thats the assesment of NATO own post war analysis , their AD was as dangerous to NATO on the first day as they were on the last and more than 700 HARM was fired as part of SEAD mission , still the only loss for Serbs were some known fixed SA-2/SA-3 sites and 2 mobile SA-6 unit , rest were intact in a campaign that involved 1000 aircraft with multiple asset. You cant get luckly always

The air campaign needs to run alongside ground campaign. Air power is overrated in some aspects and underrated in some others. Like I said, the best way to take out air defence is from the ground. 400 aircraft were involved and some 3500 sorties were run in Bosnia. That's not enough even against weaker forces from Libya let alone the Serbs who were better equipped. Kargil war, against some 3000-4000 infiltrators the IAF ran 5000 sorties and dropped 55 tons of bombs, much higher than Bosnia. That did not do as much damage as compared to the Army did.

Compared to Bosnia, during Desert Storm the coalition managed 100000 sorties and dropped 88.5 tons of bombs. It wasn't enough.

This has nothing to do with technology. Without a ground campaign you can't do anything from the air. Real losses come when ground forces encircle the enemy or move them in an unfavourable position and then pound them from the air. Has nothing to do with luck either. Modern warfare is really simple in principle, but extremely difficult in execution. Mass the enemy in one place and pound them from the air and artillery.

Air force is best used against the country's resources like oil refineries, power plants etc, not the military. That's what NATO did in Bosnia. It would be different if you have 200 or 300 Heavy Bombers at the ready.

 

[Austin]

Can you post the material you read because I don't think it is accurate. LPI does not affect range.

The RBE-2 has a small antenna, almost half as compared to Bars. The range the Bars offers has a lot to do with it's very high gain and large area of the antenna. Otherwise the power delivered should be similar.

The Bison's Kopyo-M gives only 75Km even though it is a 5KW radar. The diameter of the antenna is only 500mm. The first version of Bars was less powerful, at 4.5KW, but gave ranges in excess of 130Km for the same target because of the larger antenna and gain.

The Zaslon M should provide even higher capability than the Bars because the antenna diameter is 1400mm compared to 950mm on Bars.

I dont have the article to RBE2 but just remember off my head in a discussion i had with some one.

If you do google on LPI modes , you will find that they use low power T/R modules as one of the key elements for LPI capability besides the other trick.

LPI is not invincible its just that most ESM around are not tuned to detect it but the more ultra modern one can , much like most RWR wasnt tuned to detect the Ka band but the most recent one have those capability.

If Growler does not work against S-300 then nothing will work against it.

You cant be too sure as say it does not work , it is possible Growler is very effective against S-300 SAM.

The problem is none of the double digit SAM like S-300 , SA-11 ,SA-23 etc have been employed in combat against any NATO/US or Israel to judge its effectiveness of system in real combat , go back to the 60 and 70's , Israel faced SA-3 , SA-6 ,SA-2 from the arabs , US faced SA-2 against Vietnam , Fast forward 80's Israel faced the same SA-6 , fast forward the early 90's Gulf War , Coalition faced the same SA-2,SA-3 and SA-6 .....fast forward to late 90's NATO faced the same SA-2,SA-3,SA-6 against the Serbs and then go again to operation enduring freedom its the same SA-3 against the Iraq.

So in all 4 decades the SAM threat did not change , countries either did well like Egypt did well with SA-3/SA-6 in War of Attrition or Yom Kippur war or did very badly like in Beqqa valley or Lebanon War , similarly in Kosovo with the same system the Serbs did quite well.

Any country that could function well under pressure of war and could adapt and modify to the situation in real time did well , the others who could not adapt perished as their opponent could adapt and dominate the SAM , Like Israel did.

This would mean carrying air borne jammers against PLA will be useless. Of course, I don't believe it because even simple solutions can defeat the best radars. The issue is finding that right solution.

Nothing is useless , it would still save a day for fighter pilots , SAMS are not perfect solution neither are Jammers , The one who are regularly change their tactics and learn from mistakes and keep adapting to their environments under pressures of war will do well , will end up with less casualty and will dominate.

Its difficult to say how well IAF would fare in real war against a first rate enemy like china and how the Chinese IADS would fare against a first rate Air Force like IAF.

The air campaign needs to run alongside ground campaign. Air power is overrated in some aspects and underrated in some others. Like I said, the best way to take out air defence is from the ground. 400 aircraft were involved and some 3500 sorties were run in Bosnia. That's not enough even against weaker forces from Libya let alone the Serbs who were better equipped. Kargil war, against some 3000-4000 infiltrators the IAF ran 5000 sorties and dropped 55 tons of bombs, much higher than Bosnia. That did not do as much damage as compared to the Army did.

Compared to Bosnia, during Desert Storm the coalition managed 100000 sorties and dropped 88.5 tons of bombs. It wasn't enough.

This has nothing to do with technology. Without a ground campaign you can't do anything from the air. Real losses come when ground forces encircle the enemy or move them in an unfavourable position and then pound them from the air. Has nothing to do with luck either. Modern warfare is really simple in principle, but extremely difficult in execution. Mass the enemy in one place and pound them from the air and artillery.

Air force is best used against the country's resources like oil refineries, power plants etc, not the military. That's what NATO did in Bosnia. It would be different if you have 200 or 300 Heavy Bombers at the ready.

Agreed Air Force can just soften things for you and in the end Ground Forces will have to fight their way and dominate. The only people who exxaggarate their Air Force Capability are the Air Force themself , its a constant turf battle and you even see that in IAF.

In Kosovo conflict the Air Campaign managers mentioned that they managed to destroy 200 serb tanks etc when post war analysis was done they found that in reality only 35 tanks were destroyed.

In every Country there is a tendency to exxaggarate the Air Force capability and to under rate Ground Force contribution , there is a certain amount of charm associated with Air Force and the LGB dropping video from 30 thousand feet looks cool for PR and News

The Hard , Dirty and the Final job is still done by the ground forces.

The reason why they didnt go for Ground Campaign in Kosovo is becuause NATO countries are very sensitive to body bags and it was like fighting in Serbs own back yard , they did not want body bags and they preffered the Aerial Route.

 

[charlie]

Global Defence: Russian flat variable-geometry nozzle.

Russian su27 video with flat nozzle

 

[Payeng]

^^ historical experiment on 27 platform.

 

[p2prada]

I dont have the article to RBE2 but just remember off my head in a discussion i had with some one.

If you do google on LPI modes , you will find that they use low power T/R modules as one of the key elements for LPI capability besides the other trick.

LPI can be achieved using various ways. When tracking the power and pulse duration can be made to fluctuate. But it shouldn't make a drastic difference in tracking. The RBE 2 is said to track a fighter sized object form 120-130Km. It is pretty good.

Low power of T/R modules keep side lobes and noise at the lower level. So, that's their primary advantage. This automatically helps LPI. A 100W signal entering the side lobes of a 5KW(peak) radar would actually make it useless. AESA sidelobes are a 100 times smaller than ones found on regular radars. High power jammers are useful if you have inferior technology. The EF and F-22 are made to survive without jammers.

Side lobes and noise are unnecessary signals.

So in all 4 decades the SAM threat did not change , countries either did well like Egypt did well with SA-3/SA-6 in War of Attrition or Yom Kippur war or did very badly like in Beqqa valley or Lebanon War , similarly in Kosovo with the same system the Serbs did quite well.

Strategy and tactics has a part to play along with the sophistication of the user along with maintenance.

 

[p2prada]

Flat nozzles are not meant for stealth. They have a different use.