Sukhoi Su 30MKI

[Kshithij]

The thing is, they don't have to.
Stealth aircraft only need to detect IADS radar/AWACS before they are detected. And while AWACS have much more powerful radar, their RCS is also much bigger. One thing people always forget, you do not need to have a jammer more powerful than the radar to jam it. That why tiny jammer like RT-1489/ALE, BRITECLOUD, ALE-55, ALE-70 can work even though they are tiny and very weak . Because the jammer is not competing against the full output of the radar, it only competing against the reflection of the aircraft, which is a really small fraction of radar power and jammer signal only travel one way while radar signal have to travel 2 ways.

You might still think the much more powerful radar of AWACs will allow them to detect and target stealth aircraft first before they became the prey?. Well no, assuming the hypothetical AWACs has a radar with the average transmitted power of 1MW (ways more powerful than what available now), and the hypothetical stealth fighter has a radar with the average transmitted power of 3 kW (readily available in the market). That makes the AWACS radar 333.3 times more powerful than the stealth fighter radar. Unfortunately, that is still not enough, because common AWACs such as A-50 or E-3 have RCS around 20 dBsm or 100 m2, which is 100.000 times higher than a stealth aircraft. In short, if you put the number into at the equation that i gave earlier, it is highly impractical for AWACS to detect stealth aircraft first. (note: Pt= transmitting power of radar , σ = Radar cross section)

https://books.google.com.vn/books?i...bAhWEppQKHZIfDmoQ6AEIZTAG#v=onepage&q&f=false

Ok, so how about ground radar?. Practically, you can make them as powerful as you want, and because they are hiding within ground clutter so they would be the silver bullet against stealth aircraft?. Not really, since RWR exists. RWR can't replace radar in air to air role, because while they are totally silent and can give very accurate angular information, like all others passive system, against moving airborne target, they have very hard time quickly measuring the distance to target, or their velocity/heading/altitude. So a firing solution for BVR missiles can't be made quickly. On the other hand, ground targets have certain characteristics that makes geolocating them very easy. https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/

Another issue with ground radar is radar horizon, due to the curvature of the earth, there is a limitation on how far a normal radar can see depending on the altitude of the aircraft. Of course, there are OTH radar but they are highly inaccurate and also very massive, making them very easy target for cruise missiles

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
P/s: modern cruise missile can fly very far

You seem to be thinking that jammer completely masks the reflection. The reality is that the jammer creates a cloud of reflection because of which the receiver sees a large area of target. The farther the receiver, farther bigger the area. For example, a receiver at 200km may receive area as big as 10000 metre square as a target instead of 1 metre square area of the plane. It also makes the distance calculation error large. But the jammer does not hide the plane completely. The plane is only made difficult to be locked by missile.

About stealth jet seeing AEWACS but not other way around due to jammers is also inaccurate. If jet can use jammers, so can AEWACS. So, it is evened out here.

Ground based radar is vulnerable to curvature of the earth and ground barriers like mountains. So, the ground based radar works in coordination with AEWACS. If the enemy jet is flying high and fast, ground radars will detect with ease. If the plane is low flying and slow, AEWACS will detect. If the plane is low flying, it is a threat to Ground radar but not a threat to AEWACS and if the plane is high flying it is a threat to AEWACS but not to ground radar

 

[StealthFlanker]

Which again, is nothing new because that exactly was the case a decade ago for Mig 21s too.

Except that stealth fighter brought that to a whole another level, because even Mig-21 have massive RCS compared to stealth aircraft. Even if we ignored the direct frontal with RCS = 10 dBsm (10m2) and only consider the near frontal aspect with RCS = 0 dBsm (1m2). If both aircraft use the same jammer then burn through distance against Mig-21bis is 33 times bigger ( that basically the difference between 12 km and 400 km), for them to have the same burn-through distance then Mig-21 will need a jammer that is literally 1000 times more powerful.

The point was what the most effective counter to stealth designs is and that another fighter, with limited performance sensors, is not the key.

My point is best counter against stealth design is a dedicated linked IADS network and VLO aircraft of your own. Because if you rely on big conventional aircraft whether they are AWACS or like Su-35 they will easily become the prey.

Lol right, because AWACS are not equipped with countermeasures and jammers? Even active decoys like Brite Cloud are now offered for larger aircrafts, so the missile have to evade those first, before they can attack the aircraft.

The issue is that stealth aircraft can and will engage AWACS from distance much longer than the AWACS can do the same to them. When your enemy can detect/track and engage you from 200-300 km away and you can only track them from 20-30 km away then it doesn't really matter if you have countermeasures for missiles because countermeasures will eventually run out and stealth side will always dictate the engagement. And no I'm not exaggerating, because if you have an AWACS that can burn-through Mig-21bis jamming from 1000 km away, then that same AWACS will only able to burn-through J-31/PAK-FA/F-35 jamming from 33 km.

Not to mention that the maximum range of most current BVR missiles is just around 100Km, while the engagement range is lower. But the AWACS can detect and guide escorts far earlier.

You can't guide escort against something you can't even track. And future AAM have much longer range
as i have already shown some example in last page https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/sukhoi-su-30mki.43829/page-91

 

[StealthFlanker]

You seem to be thinking that jammer completely masks the reflection. The reality is that the jammer creates a cloud of reflection because of which the receiver sees a large area of target. The farther the receiver, farther bigger the area. For example, a receiver at 200km may receive area as big as 10000 metre square as a target instead of 1 metre square area of the plane. It also makes the distance calculation error large. But the jammer does not hide the plane completely. The plane is only made difficult to be locked by missile.

Firstly, there are many many kind of jamming, not all jamming try to mask reflection.

Secondly, noise jamming does hide the plane completely while deceptive jamming attempt to break missiles to lock.
Noise jamming example:

Deceptive jamming example:

About stealth jet seeing AEWACS but not other way around due to jammers is also inaccurate. If jet can use jammers, so can AEWACS. So, it is evened out here

Except that it won't, because the ratio is simply too large in favor of stealth aircraft. I already gave you the equation, the least you could do is put in some number and try for yourself. Most stealth aircraft have RCS effectively 100.000 times lower than an AWACS like A-50/E-3 unless AWACS carry radar with few dozens Mw average transmitted power, it won't balance out.

 

[Sancho]

Except that stealth fighter brought that to a whole another level

And that's exactly why the performance of the sensors to detect must increase too!

Take your own graphic of the Erieye radar as an example, with a detection range for a 1m2 cruise missile sized target, well above 150Km. The latest Globaleye AWACS with an improved radar is said to deliver 70% more detection range.

So the lower the RCS of modern targets gets, the more advanced the sensors need to be to detect them!
And when you then add a variety of sensors to it, EW/ESM, IRST..., the possibility to counter stealth gets higher.

My point is best counter against stealth design is a dedicated linked IADS network and VLO aircraft of your own.

Having stealth doesn't help to detect stealth.

The issue is that stealth aircraft can and will engage AWACS from distance much longer than the AWACS can do the same to them.

Again you are confusing detection and engagement. A fighter, no matter if stealth or not, can detect a large aircraft from long distances, because of the RCS of the target and the performance of the radar. Engaging the AWACS however is limited to the performance of it's missiles and as explained, any fighter has to come very close to the AWACS to successfully make an attack, while being detected itself and countered by escorts and ground defences.

You can't guide escort against something you can't even track.

The AWACS tracks the target and guide the escorts. You are mistaken if you belive stealth means invisible, it only means very hard to detect and that's exactly why improving sensors remains the key.

 

[Kshithij]

Firstly, there are many many kind of jamming, not all jamming try to mask reflection.

Secondly, noise jamming does hide the plane completely while deceptive jamming attempt to break missiles to lock.
Noise jamming example:

Deceptive jamming example:

Except that it won't, because the ratio is simply too large in favor of stealth aircraft. I already gave you the equation, the least you could do is put in some number and try for yourself. Most stealth aircraft have RCS effectively 100.000 times lower than an AWACS like A-50/E-3 unless AWACS carry radar with few dozens Mw average transmitted power, it won't balance out.

About noise jamming, the only effective jamming is barrage jamming. However, even that can be rendered useless by being able to detect the jamming signals and separate the original reflection from it.

Also, by having radars which can randomly alter its frequencies or by changing the beam from one frequency to multiple frequencies rapidly, thereby altering the J|S ratio quickly, it is possible to see through the jammer.
About AEWACS being 100times highr RCS than stealth jet, I would put it at about 50 times rather than 100. Also, the radar on AEWACS is 100 times stronger than those on the plane. Hence the jamming capabilities and detection capabilities cancel out the size disadvantage

 

[StealthFlanker]

And that's exactly why the performance of the sensors to detect must increase too!
Take your own graphic of the Erieye radar as an example, with a detection range for a 1m2 cruise missile sized target, well above 150Km. The latest Globaleye AWACS with an improved radar is said to deliver 70% more detection range..
So the lower the RCS of modern targets gets, the more advanced the sensors need to be to detect them!
And when you then add a variety of sensors to it, EW/ESM, IRST..., the possibility to counter stealth gets higher.

Getting more advanced sensor is fine, getting more advanced sensor while not caring about your own signature vulnerability isn't. The whole point of stealth is to get First look-First track-First shot. If you only improve your sensor and do nothing to your signature, you will still be detected and attacked first.

Having stealth doesn't help to detect stealth.

Actually, It does, because with stealth you can bring your sensor closer to the threat without being detected yourself. The purpose is not just to detect targets, the purpose is to detect targets without being detected yourself. In fact, that how nations with stealth aircrafy plan to use their assets against adversary stealth aircraft.

Again you are confusing detection and engagement. A fighter, no matter if stealth or not, can detect a large aircraft from long distances, because of the RCS of the target and the performance of the radar. Engaging the AWACS however is limited to the performance of it's missiles and as explained, any fighter has to come very close to the AWACS to successfully make an attack, while being detected itself and countered by escorts and ground defences.

No, iam not confusing between detection and engagement range. But you, are confusing between engagement range of missile against agile fighter and engagement range of missiles against slow sluggish massive AWACS.
NEZ is basically when once you launch the missile, the enemy can't get outside the kinematic envelope even if they immediately alerted of the missile launch, needless to say why NEZ against a slow AWACs will be significantly longer.
Most future air to air missiles have max kinematic range between 150-200 km, some even futher. Even if we assume NEZ against AWACS is only half that distance (75-100 km). So your AWACS need to burn-through jamming and guide missiles to engage stealth aircraft at distance even further than that (because if the distance is the same they will just loft missiles then run away). 75-100 km burn-though distance against stealth aircraft may sound plausible until you realized the hypothetical radar that can do that will also able to burn-through Mig-21 jamming at 2500-3000 km and burn-through F-15/Su-30 jamming at 30.000-40.000 km. Yeah, AWACS radar are powerful but not THAT powerful.

The AWACS tracks the target and guide the escorts. You are mistaken if you belive stealth means invisible, it only means very hard to detect and that's exactly why improving sensors remains the key.

Well no, i never said stealth mean invisible, in fact, i even talk about burn-through distance and give various equation, charts and sources to prove my point. You on the other hand, argue with personal assumptions.

 

[StealthFlanker]

About noise jamming, the only effective jamming is barrage jamming. However, even that can be rendered useless by being able to detect the jamming signals and separate the original reflection from it.

Sorry but no, when noise overwhelm reflections, you can't just separate jamming signal and reflection and make barrage noise jamming useless. If that was the case then support jamming wouldn't exist because they rely on noise jamming instead of deceptive jamming

Also, by having radars which can randomly alter its frequencies or by changing the beam from one frequency to multiple frequencies rapidly, thereby altering the J|S ratio quickly, it is possible to see through the jammer.

Frequency hopping is hardly new, it is useless against barrage jamming because you basically pour jamming signal through its whole bandwidth.

There is also a limitation on how wide radar bandwidth is so you can't just change frequency through the whole spectrum. For example: for AESA and PESA, element separation will limit your frequency, normally elements separation is wavelength/2. Elements too close to each other and you have mutual coupling, too far apart and you will have grating lobes.

About AEWACS being 100times highr RCS than stealth jet, I would put it at about 50 times rather than 100. Also, the radar on AEWACS is 100 times stronger than those on the plane. Hence the jamming capabilities and detection capabilities cancel out the size disadvantage

What ???????
You think a massive AWACS such as below only have RCS 50 times bigger than a full-on stealth fighter?

To give you an idea of about rcs of big aircraft, here is scattering chart of XB-70, you can see RCS varied between 100-100.000 square meters (20-50 dBsm), on the other hand, stealth aircraft have RCS around -30 dBsm or even lower.
So no the difference in RCS between stealth aircraft and AWACS is not 100 times but 100.000-1000.000 times. There is no contest, period.

Even the small 737-400 have pretty massive RCS

 

[Sancho]

The whole point of stealth is to get First look-First track-First shot.

In fighter vs fighter engagements, not for fighter vs AWACS, because of the superior sensors.

Actually, It does, because with stealth you can bring your sensor closer to the threat without being detected yourself.

You say it and still don't understand it, that the sensor is the key! If an EF and and F35 fly next to each other and would have the same AESA radar, both would detect an enemy fighter ahead of them at the same time, because the sensor is the key, not if you have a stealth airframe or not.

The purpose is not just to detect targets, the purpose is to detect targets without being detected yourself.

Not really, the purpose of any sensor is to detect, while the purpose of stealth is to avoid detection. Both really separate and don't add to each other.

No, iam not confusing between detection and engagement range. But you, are confusing between engagement range of missile against agile fighter and engagement range of missiles against slow sluggish massive AWACS.

Wrong again, a missile has a maximum range, which is dependent on it's own fuel and propulsion capabilities, not dependent on the target size it engages. It's not like you have 100Km range for a fighter target and 200Km for a larger aircraft. So you are indeed confusing a lot of things here.

NEZ is basically when once you launch the missile, the enemy can't get outside the kinematic envelope even if they immediately alerted of the missile launch, needless to say why NEZ against a slow AWACs will be significantly longer.

Nope, we don't have WW1 air combats anymore, where you can evade an enemy attack only by evading manouvers. The main defensive asset today are countermeasures and jamming, to distract incoming missiles and the longer the distance to the target, the higher the chance for countermeasures to distract the missile seekers. That's where Meteors speed advantage comes in, to reduce the time to the target and therefore increase the no escape zone.

You are posting a lot of nice pics, but you need to understand them too, because you mentioned brite could and modern jamming methods to, but fail to understand, that they also apply to high value targets like AWACS too.

 

[Sancho]

UAC advertising for the MKI

 

[StealthFlanker]

In fighter vs fighter engagements, not for fighter vs AWACS, because of the superior sensors.

Nope, that is absolute nonsense, almost a child's dream but far from reality.
Not only that i have demonstrated to you through physic equation and calculation that no AWACS can have first look, first shot against stealth aircraft. It literally impossible. I also showed you the tactic that airforce intended to use their stealth aircraft. Stealth fighter are literally designed to penetrate ground air defense, sophisticated defense like S-300 family have radar far more powerful than any AWACS period.

At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.

https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/

F-22 pilot Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver

responded to charges of sub-standard F-22 performance in a June 13/06 Virginian-Pilot article, and illustrated a number of the points above:

“In the Raptor, “I can outmaneuver an F-16, F-15, F-18. It doesn’t matter…” [and] the F-22’s radar works in a way that allows him to use it without revealing himself. Though its exact workings are classified, the F-22 is known to emit radar signals in extremely short bursts over multiple frequencies.

“Even if you detect me, you’re not going to know where I am a second from now,” said Joe Quimb, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, the Raptor’s principal builder.

Tolliver said that radar and other sensors, along with information fed into the Raptor’s computers from ground-based radars and other planes, gives F-22 pilots an exceptional, unified view of potential threats and targets aloft and on the ground… “It’s amazing the information you have at your fingertips,” Tolliver said. In no-holds-barred mock battles with F-15s, F-16s and the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornets, he and other Raptor pilots generally “destroy” their adversaries before those foes even realize they’re around…”

That was proven in the June 2006 Northern Edge exercise, when even E-2C and E-3 AWACS aircraft reportedly weren’t much help against the F-22.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-22-raptor-capabilities-and-controversies-019069/

You say it and still don't understand it, that the sensor is the key! If an EF and and F35 fly next to each other and would have the same AESA radar, both would detect an enemy fighter ahead of them at the same time, because the sensor is the key, not if you have a stealth airframe or not.

sigh.............
Iam not sure if you actually don't understand such a simple fact or playing ignorance
yes, if Eurofighter and F-35 have the same sensor, they will detect targets at the same time but Eurofighter will be detected before it can see the target, so it will be vulnerable. On the other hand, thanks to stealth, F-35 can detect target before it is detected, how hard is that to understand??????. that literally, why airforce conceptual tactic of using F-35 is the way they are.

Or let me make it more simple:
Why do you think sniper dress like this:

instead of like this?

Not really, the purpose of any sensor is to detect, while the purpose of stealth is to avoid detection. Both really separate and don't add to each other.

sigh........
Really? you seriously think it will be the same if you can detect enemy from 10 km but they can see you from 100 km and in second case if you can detect enemy from 10 km but they can detect you from 5 km only????. Do you seriously think stealth add nothing to your survivability in that case????

Wrong again, a missile has a maximum range, which is dependent on it's own fuel and propulsion capabilities, not dependent on the target size it engages. It's not like you have 100Km range for a fighter target and 200Km for a larger aircraft. So you are indeed confusing a lot of things here.

............
no, iam not confusing anything here
but you seem to be unable to grasp some very simple concept that i start to think you are trying to play dumb with me
Missiles have maximum kinematic range depending on its own fuel and propulsion but its effective range depending on the target. Why? you may ask. Because when you pull higher G, you will generate higher drag from the higher AoA
For example, do you notice in this F-14 manual how the Ps (specific excess power) is 0 at 2.1G but -800 at 4.1G?

this drag will either slow your missiles down or the missile will consume fuel to accelerate back to intended speed, all of which will result in a decrease of missiles range. Don't believe me? feel free to have a look at S-200 engagement envelope vs different target from the manual.

Nope, we don't have WW1 air combats anymore, where you can evade an enemy attack only by evading manouvers. The main defensive asset today are countermeasures and jamming, to distract incoming missiles and the longer the distance to the target, the higher the chance for countermeasures to distract the missile seekers. That's where Meteors speed advantage comes in, to reduce the time to the target and therefore increase the no escape zone.

You know datalink exist right ?and NEZ literally about kinematic aspect and has nothing to do with sensor capability

You are posting a lot of nice pics, but you need to understand them too

To be frank, it is extremely ironic for you to accuse me of not understanding my pic, while it you who unable to grasp extremely simple concept such as why missiles effective range will be longer against less maneuver target , or why having stealth yourself will negate tactical advantage of adversary stealth platform.
Nevermind the fact that i actually support my argument why sources, physics equation, calculation, manual charts whereas, what you have to support your point? literally nothing until now.

because you mentioned brite could and modern jamming methods to, but fail to understand, that they also apply to high value targets like AWACS too

where did i said AWACS can't use jamming and decoy? i literally said they can and even explained to you why decoys and jamming will be far more effective on stealth aircraft with physics.

 

[Sancho]

To be frank, it is extremely ironic for you to accuse me of not understanding my pic,

It's not ironic, it's simply true. On any forum you will find members that randomly post pics and links to "act" as if they have some knowledge or insides, when in fact it's just a measure to hide factual problems and distract. This whole post makes that even more evident, where you try to distract from admitting your mistake, by moving from AWACS to completely unrelated quotes and pics for S400.

Or why you actually admit that the "sensor" is the key to counter stealth =>

yes, if Eurofighter and F-35 have the same sensor, they will detect targets at the same time

But still try to distract with unrelated stuff, that we were not talking about.

Bottom line remains,

1. Stealth design doesn't help to "detect" your enemy!

2. To counter a stealth aircraft, you need powerful radars and / or a variety of sensors, because sensors are the key!

3. Even if a fighter "sensor" can detect an AWACS at long distance, engagement is dependent on the no escape zone of the missile and that's still shorter than the detection range of the AWACS radar!

 

[StealthFlanker]

It's not ironic, it's simply true. On any forum you will find members that randomly post pics and links to "act" as if they have some knowledge or insides, when in fact it's just a measure to hide factual problems and distract. This whole post makes that even more evident, where you try to distract from admitting your mistake, by moving from AWACS to completely unrelated quotes and pics for S400.
Or why you actually admit that the "sensor" is the key to counter stealth =>

Except that i didn't. Read my post again carefully
I post quote for both AWACS (E-2,E-3) and S-300/400. The quote for S-300/400 is actually to counter your point that first look, first shot advantage of stealth aircraft can simply be countered with superior sensor

Tolliver said. In no-holds-barred mock battles with F-15s, F-16s and the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornets, he and other Raptor pilots generally “destroy” their adversaries before those foes even realize they’re around…”

That was proven in the June 2006 Northern Edge exercise, when even E-2C and E-3 AWACS aircraft reportedly weren’t much help against the F-22.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-22-raptor-capabilities-and-controversies-019069/
you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever for any of your claims nor have you provided any logical explanations, you literally just repeat your agenda again and again without any supporting facts or calculation. On any forum, there are members who can't support their argument so they choose to play dumb as a form of distraction. Your post makes it even more evidence that you are trying distract from admitting your mistake, such as thinking effective engagement range of any missiles will be the same versus fighters and sluggish AWACS

But still try to distract with unrelated stuff, that we were not talking about.

Bottom line remains,

1. Stealth design doesn't help to "detect" your enemy!

2. To counter a stealth aircraft, you need powerful radars and / or a variety of sensors, because sensors are the key!

3. Even if a fighter "sensor" can detect an AWACS at long distance, engagement is dependent on the no escape zone of the missile and that's still shorter than the detection range of the AWACS radar!

Actually, i haven't try to distract you at all, it is you who either willingly playing dumb or so stubborn that you can't admit that you are wrong despite overwhelming evidence
Bottom line remains

1.Real combat consists of many elements which "detect" is only a small part. To be survivable, you need to "detect enemy FIRST", and that why signature management is so important. It is better to see enemy at 10 km and them only see you at 5 km than seeing them at 20km but they can see you at 300 km. Having stealth asset yourself will negate the advantage of adversary stealth aircraft because they can no longer have first look, first shot. With stealth aircraft you can get your sensor closer to enemy and target them before they do the same to you. It is also the way RAF and USAF planned to use their stealth aircraft. You are simply nowhere as well informed as those mission planner period.

2. Except that it is useless if they can still detect and engage you from much longer distance.
Case A with AWACS: You detect the enemy from 25 km, they detect you from 300 km
Case B with superior stealth aircraft: You detect the enemy from 8 km, but they can detect you from only 5 km
Even a child know which case give the better advantage.

3.Air to air missiles have much longer effective range against sluggish aircraft like AWACS. As a matter of fact, NEZ of air to air missiles against AWACS will out range AWACS's burn-through range against stealth aircraft by such a huge margin that it isn't even a contest.

 

[Manish Khan]

No, it actually depends on what aspect of agility you looking at, if we looking at post stall maneuver then sure, Russian aircraft surpass their American counterpart thanks to their TVC, but if we looking at something like acceleration, roll rate, sustain turn rate then no. For example: sustained turn rate at low altitude of F-16 with DI=0 is better than most
Manual data: (pay attention to the curve with Ps=0)
F-16C sustained turn rate top out at 23°/s

F-15, Su-27 sustained turn rate top out at 22°/s

No it can't
that not how it work. Pugachev's cobra change your nose pointing but it doesn't change your direction of travel, you only momentarily pitch very high AoA to slow down your aircraft

It can be helpful to gain firing solution in some turning fight, but you can't instantaneous flying in the opposite direction

Of course, there are maneuvers that allow you to kinda spin your aircraft in a circle but there are Western aircraft that can do that too. With that being said, post-stall maneuver are horrible if you want to dodge missiles because you basically deplete all your energy.

https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/EnchantingFarflungGrison

very professional,thanks for your sharing,janab

 

[Sancho]

Actually, i haven't try to distract you at all, it is you who either willingly playing dumb or so stubborn that you can't admit that you are wrong despite overwhelming evidence

Lol, you admitted that sensors are the key to detect, confirming what I said and still insist that I'm wrong, so much for playing dumb and being stubborn.
No need to waste more time. :biggrin2:

 

[StealthFlanker]

Lol, you admitted that sensors are the key to detect, confirming what I said and still insist that I'm wrong, so much for playing dumb and being stubborn.
No need to waste more time. :biggrin2:

Sigh........This is like playing chess with a pigeon.....i can't even.

very professional,thanks for your sharing,janab

You are welcome man

 

[Kshithij]

Except that i didn't. Read my post again carefully
I post quote for both AWACS (E-2,E-3) and S-300/400. The quote for S-300/400 is actually to counter your point that first look, first shot advantage of stealth aircraft can simply be countered with superior sensor

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-22-raptor-capabilities-and-controversies-019069/
you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever for any of your claims nor have you provided any logical explanations, you literally just repeat your agenda again and again without any supporting facts or calculation. On any forum, there are members who can't support their argument so they choose to play dumb as a form of distraction. Your post makes it even more evidence that you are trying distract from admitting your mistake, such as thinking effective engagement range of any missiles will be the same versus fighters and sluggish AWACS




Actually, i haven't try to distract you at all, it is you who either willingly playing dumb or so stubborn that you can't admit that you are wrong despite overwhelming evidence
Bottom line remains

1.Real combat consists of many elements which "detect" is only a small part. To be survivable, you need to "detect enemy FIRST", and that why signature management is so important. It is better to see enemy at 10 km and them only see you at 5 km than seeing them at 20km but they can see you at 300 km. Having stealth asset yourself will negate the advantage of adversary stealth aircraft because they can no longer have first look, first shot. With stealth aircraft you can get your sensor closer to enemy and target them before they do the same to you. It is also the way RAF and USAF planned to use their stealth aircraft. You are simply nowhere as well informed as those mission planner period.

2. Except that it is useless if they can still detect and engage you from much longer distance.
Case A with AWACS: You detect the enemy from 25 km, they detect you from 300 km
Case B with superior stealth aircraft: You detect the enemy from 8 km, but they can detect you from only 5 km
Even a child know which case give the better advantage.

3.Air to air missiles have much longer effective range against sluggish aircraft like AWACS. As a matter of fact, NEZ of air to air missiles against AWACS will out range AWACS's burn-through range against stealth aircraft by such a huge margin that it isn't even a contest.

There are some things which I must clarify-
1) stealth is not absolute stealth. Unlike the sniper who uses similar materials as the surrounding, plqnes use metals and composite bodies which are drastically different from the surrounding atmosphere. So, the stealth can come only by having surface deflection and RAM coating. None of these are enough to fully mask the plane. So, there will be only lower observability but not stealth.
2)The AEWACS (AWACS is a specific plane of USA just like F16, not the general type of planes) are always working in tandem with ground radars. The AEWACS detect low flying objects that are a threat to ground radars (SEAD) while ground radars detect high flying objects which are a threat to AEWACS. So, when working in tandem, the stealth fighter of enemy will be easily detected. The stealth fighters which fly high can be detected much farther than what they need to target AEWACS by the ground radar. The ground radars are far more powerful and has great detection range. If the enemy stealth fighter tries to do SEAD against ground radars, they need to fly closer to the radars while flying low. But the AEWACS will detect them and alert the ground station.

Overall, the enemy stealth fighter can be defended in home turf only using high end sensors and radars, not by stealth planes. Stealth planes are good for counter offense and not defence

 

[StealthFlanker]

There are some things which I must clarify-
1) stealth is not absolute stealth. Unlike the sniper who uses similar materials as the surrounding, plqnes use metals and composite bodies which are drastically different from the surrounding atmosphere. So, the stealth can come only by having surface deflection and RAM coating. None of these are enough to fully mask the plane. So, there will be only lower observability but not stealth.

Of course, stealth doesn't mean your RCS = 0
But there are 2 things:
a) There is always background noise and all radar system have internal noise
b) You can raise background noise level with jamming.
Imagine try to find a grain of sand from 10 meters away with your naked eye when someone shining a light at your eye.

2)The AEWACS (AWACS is a specific plane of USA just like F16, not the general type of planes)

Yeah you are right, it is my old habit of writing that

The AEWACS detect low flying objects that are a threat to ground radars (SEAD) while ground radars detect high flying objects which are a threat to AEWACS. So, when working in tandem, the stealth fighter of enemy will be easily detected. The stealth fighters which fly high can be detected much farther than what they need to target AEWACS by the ground radar. The ground radars are far more powerful and has great detection range. If the enemy stealth fighter tries to do SEAD against ground radars, they need to fly closer to the radars while flying low. But the AEWACS will detect them and alert the ground station.

That work all well and good against conventional aircraft because you can pretty much see them at the horizon, the issue raised when go against stealth aircraft because they can engage AEWACS before AEWACS can detect them. Furthermore, because, modern cruise missile have very long range (500-550 km) aircraft can practically engage SAM from outside their engagement range.

 

[Kshithij]

But there are 2 things:
a) There is always background noise and all radar system have internal noise
b) You can raise background noise level with jamming.
Imagine try to find a grain of sand from 10 meters away with your naked eye when someone shining a light at your eye.

Jammers do cause noise but that is still not enough to fully jam anything. Moreover, the noise of jammers can not be exactly identical to noise from nearby surrounding. Taking your example of sand graim from 100m, if the sand grain is covered by a mirror to make it appear similar to surrounding, the discontinuity from the mirror and the surrounding can still be found out. Jamming creates additional sihnal ajd finding out why there is extra signal from an area can detect the jammer.

That work all well and good against conventional aircraft because you can pretty much see them at the horizon, the issue raised when go against stealth aircraft because they can engage AEWACS before AEWACS can detect them. Furthermore, because, modern cruise missile have very long range (500-550 km) aircraft can practically engage SAM from outside their engagement range.

Cruise missiles fored from far off distance will also be easily intercepted. That is why HARM missiles are used from short range like 150km. These HARM missiles travel at over 2 Mach and hits ground targets. These SEAD operation have only been proven against weaker enemy and not stronger ones.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Jammers do cause noise but that is still not enough to fully jam anything. Moreover, the noise of jammers can not be exactly identical to noise from nearby surrounding. Taking your example of sand graim from 100m, if the sand grain is covered by a mirror to make it appear similar to surrounding, the discontinuity from the mirror and the surrounding can still be found out. Jamming creates additional sihnal ajd finding out why there is extra signal from an area can detect the jammer.

You can fulling jam a radar. Imagine it like someone shine some super bright light at your eye, when you trying to find a sand grain from 100 m. Jammer doesn't try to make the return of aircraft look like surrounding, it try to deny targetting information either by sending pulse with different delay/frequency or overwhelmed the receiver of radar so it can't distinguish signal and noise.
For example radar screen under noise jamming is like this

Cruise missiles fored from far off distance will also be easily intercepted.

That depends, for example: JSM is a stealth low flying missiles with passive sensors, it will be extremely hard to find.

That is why HARM missiles are used from short range like 150km. These HARM missiles travel at over 2 Mach and hits ground targets.

HARMs are used because it allows quick reaction time, sometime you want to shut the radar down quickly to protect others assets. There are longer range HARMs being developed btw

 

[Kshithij]

You can fulling jam a radar. Imagine it like someone shine some super bright light at your eye, when you trying to find a sand grain from 100 m. Jammer doesn't try to make the return of aircraft look like surrounding, it try to deny targetting information either by sending pulse with different delay/frequency or overwhelmed the receiver of radar so it can't distinguish signal and noise.
For example radar screen under

Seethe picture yourself. The exact location is masked but general location is visible. The jammer creates something like a smokescreen. You won't be able to aim and shoot a person who is hiding in smoke screen but you will definitely know that someone created that smoke and someone is hiding behind it. So, you throw a grenade at the smoke.

Similarly, when the jammer trues tr jam the radar, approximate location will be easily visible and multiple SAM with big warheads can be launched at the general direction of the plane which can then be guided more accurately as the plane comes closer and becomes more visible

HARMs are used because it allows quick reaction time, sometime you want to shut the radar down quickly to protect others assets. There are longer range HARMs being developed btw

JASM or other cruise missile requires GPS guidance which is also easily jammed. Just INS will not be enough for cruise missiles. So, HARM missiles are used which can target the radar by having sensors to detect radar. HARM relies on specific sensor to detect radar and is not same as other cruise missiles which may have other sensors like IIR, RF etc. As of now, the range of HARM missiles is low. So, longer range attavk is difficult.