Pakistan receives LD-10 Anti-radiation missiles

Olaf One-Brow said:

@Mrc The United States is developing a wide variety of countermeasures and antidotes to lessen the effectives or completely degrade the operational capacity of the DF series of ASBMs

Click to expand...

that would be stupid not to....

that also means that US is presuming that kill chain actually works for DF, which remains the biggest question..

how ever I really doubt in near or medium term this weapon can be completely degraded... especially when Russians are on record saying that no known counter measure can stop it.... only question was does the kill chain works for them.....

war&peace said:

Once you have destroyed the radar then rest is easy .

Click to expand...

You missed the point:

Sarge said:

ARM can destroy Radar and guidance system of enemy S-400, not the S- 400 missile system and tubes. If the enemy has integrated battle field communications with net centric warfare system then a redundant radar or guidance system can be in place and used for S-400.

Secondly, its already very difficult to get in range of S-400 through air and destroy its radar or S-400 missile system itself.

Click to expand...

So no, it is not THAT easy.

Sarge said:

I had asked this : what will be the long distance target for Pak C-Missile or UAV or UCAV?.

Reason was to differentiate what PAF can take out with ARM/SOW and what PA missile command can take out with CM's etc.

Considering that PAF acts on own initiative to start taking out IAF radar system by ARM's, lets see some positions of IAF Radars in the image. This isnt made by me. I picked it up from google. A red font would have been better on this back ground.

Dark blue diamonds represent P-12/18 or Indra-II radar systems, while light blue diamonds represent THD-1955 radar facilities. Blue circles represent 36D6 radar facilities. The range rings given for the 36D6 sites represent the 165 km acquisition range against a typical fighter-size target.

Most of these are so close to the LOC that PAF can take them out using ARM's or even H2 and H-4 SOW before IAF AWACS sends alert aircraft. The IAF Radars in Kashmir/Northern Punjab overlook parts of Pakistan airspace so PAF is expected to strike there.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But this would involve a major conventional strike by Pakistan to catch India unprepared (and that is somewhat unlikely given South Asia scenario is generally exposed to both sides as far as conflict ramping). This makes the likelihood of an AWACS/radar based defense plan pretty high so far as action stations already deployed when general mobilisation commences. They will be flying much like the SAC for the US during the cold war.....monitoring the airspace up to the border and beyond and keeping a thumb on the situation. Their numbers will also be increased in future to gain better round the clock coverage during peacetime and tension-time and war-time (i.e at all various defcon levels)....they wont be stuck at 5 strategic AWACS...but a much larger number of them plus smaller tactical AWACS too on the embraer platforms.

Over time there will also be a lot more mobile radar assets in general deployed by Indian forces to hedge against destruction of stationary ones in strikes by the opponent.

Sarge said:

Coming to DEAD missions. The following are some positions of IAF SAM sites. The S-125M has two specific drawbacks: range and single-target engagement capability. The ability of the system to engage one target per battery is partially mitigated by placing multiple batteries at many locations, but the 25 km maximum range of the system effectively reduces its role to one of point defence only, lacking the range to provide long-range overlapping fields of fire necessary for a more robust air defence network.

The ones in Kashmir and Northern Punjab (Gurdaspur/Pathankot/Amritsar axis) will be PAF's targets and with close proximity to borders, PAF can fire SOW (H-4) from within borders to take them out

Click to expand...

Again it needs Pakistan to be mobilised and India to be unmobilised. There are counter plans that India would have. You have to remember planners on both sides have put themselves in the others shoes and then prioritised assets, counters and overall doctrine based on the assessment results. It will be a very rare thing that one conventional force today can totally have its way with another at the initiation of hostility, even in a close proximity situation. The C4I infrastructure is way too expansive (and becoming even more so in potency and breadth) for Pakistan to have chance of complete success in such a comprehensive strike...even with things going badly for India factored in (i.e worst case scenario).

I am not up to date on what India's developments regarding this exactly are....maybe @Abingdonboy and @PARIKRAMA @Water Car Engineer can help.

Sarge said:

There is a huge tactical mistake in the map you made(if u made it). Indian Kashmir has minimal or no AWACS Coverage.

Click to expand...

Yes I made the map, and its just one possible scenario of deployment of strategic AWACS (phalcons) when they number only 5 in total. You have to remember there will be DRDO AWACS too which will definitely have a presence in Kashmir etc.

Sarge said:

In any case, if India puts AWACS in I-kashmir, it will remain threatened from western direction (Skardu airbase), south western (Peshawar airbase) and south (Chaklala and Lahore airbases) by PAF and other FOB's in between these. So operating an AWACS in I-Kashmir will be a headache for IAF.

Secondly, the northern AWACS showing coverage area beyond Lahore and till Multan, is very close to border. The coverage area is shown till Gujrat in Pakistan. The road distance between Lahore and Gujrat is around 140km, assuming aerial distance will be 90-100 km meaning IAF AWACS is around 300km from border (since you said radius is 400km). PAF will monitor its flight pattern and may strike it at first opportunity because its monitoring PAF operations/airbases and monitoring PA operations on ground inside Pak. LD-10 may come into play.

Click to expand...

Its really just to show how 400 km range radius looks like. Who knows how they will actually be deployed. It will be in concert with Indian air asset cover availability among other issues (like how the DRDO awacs platforms will be deployed).

Theres no point over analysing the positioning of them during pre-conflict and during conflict ....because those would all be plans kept under wraps by the Indian military. It is just something I made roughly to show the area they can cover sitting back in Indian airspace (whiile letting the smaller drdo awacs fill in the holes, add to ISAR capability and also take on offensive roles in Pak airspace)

Sarge said:

I asked Integration of SAM radar and AWACS because of redundancy. Can IAF AWACS control SAM sites operations if SAM radars are taken out?

Click to expand...

I don't see why not (the architecture would not be hard to develop)...but am unsure if this has been done. An AESA Awacs lends itself naturally to high broadband, high volume datalinks.

Sarge said:

I conveyed wrongly, what i meant to ask was IAF AWACS jamming intruding PAF aircrafts radars?

It wont be easy to jam IAF AWACS by PAF aircrafts, so PAF may devise some other methods countering IAF AWACS.

Click to expand...

An AWACS itself is best used for the radar provider rather than radar jammer role.....given interference and optimisation issues in hosting both in one airframe. It would be jammers in other aircraft in the AWACS local network that would provide jamming on targets it detects as far as I understand. The Phalcon does have some ECM and ECCM available to it, but thats a last case scenario really and the ECM package is more defensive in nature.

Sarge said:

For example: with maximum service ceiling, meaning max distance from ground and most outer circumference of radiated signal into ground clutter , will incur maximum losses which will make it hard to pick up ground hugging areial target like a CM/UAV (with an altitude of say 100m?)

Click to expand...

This needs access to the detailed architecture and algorithms present to get a complete analysis of the maximum pick up range. I don't have access to those...I doubt anyone has (outside of the operators themselves and high ranking command/planners)....and I doubt either the Israelis or Indians will release what ranges are for the phalcon so specifically. Even the US/NATO only released such info for the E-3 well after it was upgraded (and those numbers changed)....they kept a really tight lid on such when their major opponent was still around and their major threat.....and thats the case for both India and Israel today.

Even if I do a calculation if I somehow had access to these numbers, it would be susceptible to major errors that can only be acquired by running a real life exercise (preferably multiple times) to account for real life environmental factors etc.

Sarge said:

But will a smallest RCS object be detected at maximum range when clutter losses just have to be there? (Knowing that the output power of an AWACS radar is extremely powerful)

Click to expand...

A definite no. Maximum range only applies to high and medium range RCS targets. Only some fraction of this range would apply to low RCS targets, clutter shielded targets or both.

For a low RCS target (like a regular ground hugging cruise missile) the base reference is about 100 km for the E-3 sentry system (unupgraded) and 150+ km for gen1/gen2 upgraded (I remember reading this in some paper but I have to find it again which will take time). These are all worst case scenario numbers (i.e cruise missile is flying close to ground)

For gen 3 it is currently unknown what the cruise missile pickup with clutter range other than its better than the gen 2 upgrade. I would put the phalcon awacs somewhere around the vicinity of gen 3+ given it was an AESA from the start (rather than doppler upgraded to PESA) and thus has inbuilt architectures to exploit the advantages of the aperture resolution provided by AESA and all the relevant ISAR modules afforded by having multiple airborne AESA in operation.

Sarge said:

SNR is something different but it will get affected more due to losses. You mentioned processing (signal processing?), it comes into play when the target is emitting signals(radar) which i doubt that a CM or UAV will.

Click to expand...

Well you have to fundamentally understand what the major improvement is for a phased array system over a regular pulse doppler when it comes to reflected radar wave sensitivity. A phased array inherently acquires much more noise overall than a pulse doppler because of multiple sub beams (each one affected by noise) being added up. This means an phased array (whether PESA or AESA) must be inherently capable of processing such noise robustly from the ground up (rather than retro-fitted over time)....this means the architecture is very conducive to further processing requirements that may arise over time as they are tested and validated.

It is the multi beam process that also increases the overall radar sensitivity (and one can say performance) given the broadband of beam wavelengths sent out simultaneously and simultaneous FFT + integration done on receiving end....which thus "hedges" much better against a narrow beam of earlier pulse doppler type vintage.

It is specific noise algorithms with specific filters that help in post-processing capability of a signal and expand the envelope of an AWACS platform beyond what you mentioned earlier. Bascially it involves running the radar many times to gather hard data among clutter and then analysing how best this incoming clutter can be reduced. ISAR filters ( 2 coherent source waveguide integration for around 50 - 300% increase in resolution the last time I read about it long ago) play a large role in this by using the very velocity of the target against it along with logic filters (i.e which bits of the overall noise in the clutter are moving at a speed > 100 m/e etc. ) and various other SNR filter chains details of which I cannot reveal here (because I do not know whats been released to public domain).

Sarge said:

However what about jamming of terrain hugging CM or UAV guidance system by AWACS?

Click to expand...

They cannot be done by the AWACS itself I believe but by the aircraft/infra under its control like I mentioned earlier. Modules can be incorporated so this is done quite quickly and automatically even.....in essence the AWACS can often be the overall "brain" of a large number of aircraft.

BTW you may want to read this about what AESA is in brief:

http://armadainternational.com/assets/images/pdf/3._AESA_Radar_Technology_.pdf

Also some useful info on how the E-3 has been upgraded over the years specifically to deal with low-RCS and low flying targets:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e-3.htm

Just a small correction for you Nilgiri my friend :

Owning 5 AWACS-type ACs does not cover 3 work zones.
Between maintenance and basing, 3 planes available at any
given time is closer to the real figure.

Then you must compute to and fro times as with SSBN subs
or any material so that while one is on patrol, one is either going
back to base or returning to zone [ transit times ].

At 70-80% availability ( quite a high percentage for most Air Forces )
and 6 planes being necessary to ensure those rotations at minima,
the fleet should count 9 to 12 AWACS platforms.


On an entirely different line of thought, the terrain configuration of
both Pakistan and neighbouring Indian regions may not allow CMs
to fly as low as some people seem to think. Exocets skim the waters
because mountains are rather rare over oceans but the paths used
to lob a CM into each other's territory will include severe pop-ups or
the use of pre-defined trajectories meandering through valleys & passes.

And if you know where to lay a trap, ground based anti-air defense is enough.

All the best at home, Tay.

Arsalan said:

You missed the point:

Click to expand...

Which one?

Sarge said:

I agree, follow a SEAD mission by DEAD mission, however, Point is redundancy.

1. 5 X S-400 firing units acquired with 5 radar systems. 2 firing units/radars were placed in position to threaten PAF. Both taken out by PAF by SEAD mission (meaning just radar/guidance system taken out). IAF moved 2 more radar system from the remaining 3 to give coverage again.

Suppose PAF takes out these 2 radar systems also. S-400 is useless. It can also happen that IAF withdraws S-400 from reach of PAF and uses the remaining 3 firing units/systems as concentrated AD umbrella protecting VVIP assets like nuclear installation etc.

2. But if a redundant system( S-400 integrated with any other IAF radar, though shorter in range) is in place, S-400 capability maybe reduced but it will be operational.

Click to expand...

Yes but mechanical movement of the radar will take time while the SEED can immediately be followed up with the DEAD mission before enemy could position its assets in place and that will be a very different scenario.

war&peace said:

Which one?


Yes but mechanical movement of the radar will take time while the SEED can immediately be followed up with the DEAD mission before enemy could position its assets in place and that will be a very different scenario.

Click to expand...

the one i marked in red when i quote sarge in my last post.

Arsalan said:

the one i marked in red when i quote sarge in my last post.

Click to expand...

But that means you have to take out more than one RADARs within a short span of time. No satellite based surveillance can replace the terrestrial RADARs or AWACs ( at least in few decades) however satellite can help in communication between the systems.

Mrc said:

that would be stupid not to....

that also means that US is presuming that kill chain actually works for DF, which remains the biggest question..

Click to expand...

Presume is the operative word here. The US also presumed that the M-50, which led to comments about the infamous "bomber gap" was a credible threat to the US.



In reality it was a load of garbage. It spurned a hot of US countermeasures that helped solve future problems.

No matter if the DF series is credible or not the US is hard at work making sure future iterations don't cause it problems either.

Taygibay said:

Just a small correction for you Nilgiri my friend :

Owning 5 AWACS-type ACs does not cover 3 work zones.
Between maintenance and basing, 3 planes available at any
given time is closer to the real figure.

Then you must compute to and fro times as with SSBN subs
or any material so that while one is on patrol, one is either going
back to base or returning to zone [ transit times ].

At 70-80% availability ( quite a high percentage for most Air Forces )
and 6 planes being necessary to ensure those rotations at minima,
the fleet should count 9 to 12 AWACS platforms.


On an entirely different line of thought, the terrain configuration of
both Pakistan and neighbouring Indian regions may not allow CMs
to fly as low as some people seem to think. Exocets skim the waters
because mountains are rather rare over oceans but the paths used
to lob a CM into each other's territory will include severe pop-ups or
the use of pre-defined trajectories meandering through valleys & passes.

And if you know where to lay a trap, ground based anti-air defense is enough.

All the best at home, Tay.

Click to expand...

Yup I posted an absolute best case scenario with 5....which I would expect at the peak conflict/pre-conflict time with any AWACs we may loan from allies like Israel etc on top of the 5 strategic ones. You are completely right the AWACS fleet has to be much larger...but I think we can assume 3 zones will be feasible in the near future since its not just Phalcons but the embraer awacs too that India will have a good number of.

You bring up a good point about the terrain, I think the Pak CMs will have a tough time over kashmir etc for sure.....but over plains of punjab and desert of rajasthan.....there are plenty of flat expanses of land on the approaches to major cities and strategic installations. It is there where the IAF AWACs will have to prove their mettle in a conflict.

Have a great day my friend and take care!

Regarding LD10 induction in PAF, I have a theory.

Since this missile is a clone of SD10 with different seeker and have same physical dimensions as its parent missile. So It can be mounted on all those hard points where SD10 can be mounted.
Unlike heavier MAR1, CM102 which are mounted on hardpoints 3,4,5. LD10 can be mounted on hardpoints 1,2,6,7.
Thus even a lonely Jf17 (hypothetical scenario) for SEAD mission will be able to carry 2 SD10, 2LD10, 2LGB, 1ATP at same time, this will give air craft ability to engage radars by ARM & Launchers and Command vehicles by LGB giving it bonus DEAD capability as well as will be able to deal with aerial threat.

So technically despite of shorter range and less payload, LD10 free your precious central hardpoints for carrying heavy munitions which in case of MAR1, CM102 will not be available.

More over, India operate couple of Self Propelled anti air craft systems which have mounted radar, like Tunguska, SA8 Osa, Shilka which can become ''interesting'' targets for anti radiation missiles.

Is my theory bit credible?

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Blue Marlin @Arsalan @Sarge

Nilgiri said:

Fair enough. But this would involve a major conventional strike by Pakistan to catch India unprepared (and that is somewhat unlikely given South Asia scenario is generally exposed to both sides as far as conflict ramping). This makes the likelihood of an AWACS/radar based defense plan pretty high so far as action stations already deployed when general mobilisation commences. They will be flying much like the SAC for the US during the cold war.....monitoring the airspace up to the border and beyond and keeping a thumb on the situation. Their numbers will also be increased in future to gain better round the clock coverage during peacetime and tension-time and war-time (i.e at all various defcon levels)....they wont be stuck at 5 strategic AWACS...but a much larger number of them plus smaller tactical AWACS too on the embraer platforms.

Click to expand...

I am talking about an all out open war ofcourse. IAF will be prepared no doubt but taking out the AWACS becomes necessary when it starts conducting offensive ops coming close to LOC. An expected escort for one AWACS will be:
4 X SU30MKI's or
4 X Mig-29's.or
4 X Tejas

One whole IAF squadron (12-18) will get dedicated with 1 X AWACS 24/7 in the air. 8 hours of operational duty for 4 aircrafts means 12 aircrafts for 24 hours. If you increase the amount of AWACS in the sky, whether smaller tactical ones or A-50's, the number of squadrons dedicated to provide escort will also increase.

IAF has roughly 32 Fighter squadrons operational currently. This would mean atleast 2-3 will get occupied in giving escort duties straightaway. and if thats the case, IAF may not put more than 1-2 AWACS in the skies close to LOC.

Over time there will also be a lot more mobile radar assets in general deployed by Indian forces to hedge against destruction of stationary ones in strikes by the opponent.

Click to expand...

This is why PAF is now showing interest in ARM missiles. It didnt acquire AGM-88 but started off with MAR-1 , coming to LD-10 and now hearing stories of CM-102.

Again it needs Pakistan to be mobilised and India to be unmobilised. There are counter plans that India would have. You have to remember planners on both sides have put themselves in the others shoes and then prioritised assets, counters and overall doctrine based on the assessment results. It will be a very rare thing that one conventional force today can totally have its way with another at the initiation of hostility, even in a close proximity situation. The C4I infrastructure is way too expansive (and becoming even more so in potency and breadth) for Pakistan to have chance of complete success in such a comprehensive strike...even with things going badly for India factored in (i.e worst case scenario).

I am not up to date on what India's developments regarding this exactly are....maybe @Abingdonboy and @PARIKRAMA @Water Car Engineer can help.

Click to expand...

I kept in mind that India will be ready and mobilized when i made that post. Dont expect me to underestimate India

A comprehensive strike near the border especially using stand off weapons(SOW) is easier and has lots of chances of success than striking 150+ km inside India. This is why SOW are used.

The issue again is that IAF cant do much if a PAF JF-17 armed with LD-10 takes off from FOB near Mianwali, reaches Narowal, drops LD-10 aiming at a radar site near Pathankot and turns back. Wingman is another JF-17 armed with H-4 to destroy SAM site. This is an example. JF-17 may have F-16 escort, reaching Narowal in wartime will alert IAF fighters who will fly upto LOC to engage PAF.

Distance Narowal to Pathankot =75km
LD-10 range =85 km
H-4 Range = 120km

Going 150km + inside India, with IAF CAP's/ SAM sites coverage and AWACS in wartime will not be easy for PAF. For targets at longer ranges Pakistan will use ALCM's, CM's etc.

Yes I made the map, and its just one possible scenario of deployment of strategic AWACS (phalcons) when they number only 5 in total. You have to remember there will be DRDO AWACS too which will definitely have a presence in Kashmir etc.

Its really just to show how 400 km range radius looks like. Who knows how they will actually be deployed. It will be in concert with Indian air asset cover availability among other issues (like how the DRDO awacs platforms will be deployed).

Theres no point over analysing the positioning of them during pre-conflict and during conflict ....because those would all be plans kept under wraps by the Indian military. It is just something I made roughly to show the area they can cover sitting back in Indian airspace (whiile letting the smaller drdo awacs fill in the holes, add to ISAR capability and also take on offensive roles in Pak airspace)

Click to expand...

The point of analysing them during pre conflict or conflict is because :

1. Placement of AWACS hampers enemy airforce operations in that area. Its a force multiplier that can change odds in favour instantly.
2. It also decides which weapons (CM's or fighter carried) can be used to to counter different threats.
3. One of the points of getting LD-10, which is based on SD-10 is to target aerial radar targets.

I don't see why not (the architecture would not be hard to develop)...but am unsure if this has been done. An AESA Awacs lends itself naturally to high broadband, high volume datalinks.

Click to expand...

the integration of IAF AWACS to SAM sites is possible but not done i think.

An AWACS itself is best used for the radar provider rather than radar jammer role.....given interference and optimisation issues in hosting both in one airframe. It would be jammers in other aircraft in the AWACS local network that would provide jamming on targets it detects as far as I understand. The Phalcon does have some ECM and ECCM available to it, but thats a last case scenario really and the ECM package is more defensive in nature.


This needs access to the detailed architecture and algorithms present to get a complete analysis of the maximum pick up range. I don't have access to those...I doubt anyone has (outside of the operators themselves and high ranking command/planners)....and I doubt either the Israelis or Indians will release what ranges are for the phalcon so specifically. Even the US/NATO only released such info for the E-3 well after it was upgraded (and those numbers changed)....they kept a really tight lid on such when their major opponent was still around and their major threat.....and thats the case for both India and Israel today.

Even if I do a calculation if I somehow had access to these numbers, it would be susceptible to major errors that can only be acquired by running a real life exercise (preferably multiple times) to account for real life environmental factors etc.

Click to expand...

It would have been interesting but yeah such calculations would take up lot of time and chances of error are too high. Plus will need a simulation to test.

A definite no. Maximum range only applies to high and medium range RCS targets. Only some fraction of this range would apply to low RCS targets, clutter shielded targets or both.

For a low RCS target (like a regular ground hugging cruise missile) the base reference is about 100 km for the E-3 sentry system (unupgraded) and 150+ km for gen1/gen2 upgraded (I remember reading this in some paper but I have to find it again which will take time). These are all worst case scenario numbers (i.e cruise missile is flying close to ground)

For gen 3 it is currently unknown what the cruise missile pickup with clutter range other than its better than the gen 2 upgrade. I would put the phalcon awacs somewhere around the vicinity of gen 3+ given it was an AESA from the start (rather than doppler upgraded to PESA) and thus has inbuilt architectures to exploit the advantages of the aperture resolution provided by AESA and all the relevant ISAR modules afforded by having multiple airborne AESA in operation.

Click to expand...

How close is E-3 related to Pahlcon?

Well you have to fundamentally understand what the major improvement is for a phased array system over a regular pulse doppler when it comes to reflected radar wave sensitivity. A phased array inherently acquires much more noise overall than a pulse doppler because of multiple sub beams (each one affected by noise) being added up. This means an phased array (whether PESA or AESA) must be inherently capable of processing such noise robustly from the ground up (rather than retro-fitted over time)....this means the architecture is very conducive to further processing requirements that may arise over time as they are tested and validated.

It is the multi beam process that also increases the overall radar sensitivity (and one can say performance) given the broadband of beam wavelengths sent out simultaneously and simultaneous FFT + integration done on receiving end....which thus "hedges" much better against a narrow beam of earlier pulse doppler type vintage.

It is specific noise algorithms with specific filters that help in post-processing capability of a signal and expand the envelope of an AWACS platform beyond what you mentioned earlier. Bascially it involves running the radar many times to gather hard data among clutter and then analysing how best this incoming clutter can be reduced. ISAR filters ( 2 coherent source waveguide integration for around 50 - 300% increase in resolution the last time I read about it long ago) play a large role in this by using the very velocity of the target against it along with logic filters (i.e which bits of the overall noise in the clutter are moving at a speed > 100 m/e etc. ) and various other SNR filter chains details of which I cannot reveal here (because I do not know whats been released to public domain).

Click to expand...

I am familiar with the process you have elaborated, thanks but i have confusion on clutter issue still., anyways i will check it myself.

They cannot be done by the AWACS itself I believe but by the aircraft/infra under its control like I mentioned earlier. Modules can be incorporated so this is done quite quickly and automatically even.....in essence the AWACS can often be the overall "brain" of a large number of aircraft.

BTW you may want to read this about what AESA is in brief:

http://armadainternational.com/assets/images/pdf/3._AESA_Radar_Technology_.pdf

Also some useful info on how the E-3 has been upgraded over the years specifically to deal with low-RCS and low flying targets:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e-3.htm

Click to expand...

Thanks the links are helpful.

Tipu7 said:

Regarding LD10 induction in PAF, I have a theory.

Since this missile is a clone of SD10 with different seeker and have same physical dimensions as its parent missile. So It can be mounted on all those hard points where SD10 can be mounted.
Unlike heavier MAR1, CM102 which are mounted on hardpoints 3,4,5. LD10 can be mounted on hardpoints 1,2,6,7.
Thus even a lonely Jf17 (hypothetical scenario) for SEAD mission will be able to carry 2 SD10, 2LD10, 2LGB, 1ATP at same time, this will give air craft ability to engage radars by ARM & Launchers and Command vehicles by LGB giving it bonus DEAD capability as well as will be able to deal with aerial threat.

So technically despite of shorter range and less payload, LD10 free your precious central hardpoints for carrying heavy munitions which in case of MAR1, CM102 will not be available.

More over, India operate couple of Self Propelled anti air craft systems which have mounted radar, like Tunguska, SA8 Osa, Shilka which can become ''interesting'' targets for anti radiation missiles.

Is my theory bit credible?

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Blue Marlin @Arsalan @Sarge

Click to expand...

I dont think that SD-10 can be carried on wing tips. Only PL-5/7/9 or Aim-9.

SD-10 can be carried on 4 hardpoints, 2 under each wing.

Sarge said:

I am talking about an all out open war ofcourse. IAF will be prepared no doubt but taking out the AWACS becomes necessary when it starts conducting offensive ops coming close to LOC. An expected escort for one AWACS will be:
4 X SU30MKI's or
4 X Mig-29's.or
4 X Tejas

One whole IAF squadron (12-18) will get dedicated with 1 X AWACS 24/7 in the air. 8 hours of operational duty for 4 aircrafts means 12 aircrafts for 24 hours. If you increase the amount of AWACS in the sky, whether smaller tactical ones or A-50's, the number of squadrons dedicated to provide escort will also increase.

IAF has roughly 32 Fighter squadrons operational currently. This would mean atleast 2-3 will get occupied in giving escort duties straightaway. and if thats the case, IAF may not put more than 1-2 AWACS in the skies close to LOC.


This is why PAF is now showing interest in ARM missiles. It didnt acquire AGM-88 but started off with MAR-1 , coming to LD-10 and now hearing stories of CM-102.

I kept in mind that India will be ready and mobilized when i made that post. Dont expect me to underestimate India

A comprehensive strike near the border especially using stand off weapons(SOW) is easier and has lots of chances of success than striking 150+ km inside India. This is why SOW are used.

The issue again is that IAF cant do much if a PAF JF-17 armed with LD-10 takes off from FOB near Mianwali, reaches Narowal, drops LD-10 aiming at a radar site near Pathankot and turns back. Wingman is another JF-17 armed with H-4 to destroy SAM site. This is an example. JF-17 may have F-16 escort, reaching Narowal in wartime will alert IAF fighters who will fly upto LOC to engage PAF.

Distance Narowal to Pathankot =75km
LD-10 range =85 km
H-4 Range = 120km

Going 150km + inside India, with IAF CAP's/ SAM sites coverage and AWACS in wartime will not be easy for PAF. For targets at longer ranges Pakistan will use ALCM's, CM's etc.


The point of analysing them during pre conflict or conflict is because :

1. Placement of AWACS hampers enemy airforce operations in that area. Its a force multiplier that can change odds in favour instantly.
2. It also decides which weapons (CM's or fighter carried) can be used to to counter different threats.
3. One of the points of getting LD-10, which is based on SD-10 is to target aerial radar targets.


the integration of IAF AWACS to SAM sites is possible but not done i think.


It would have been interesting but yeah such calculations would take up lot of time and chances of error are too high. Plus will need a simulation to test.



How close is E-3 related to Pahlcon?


I am familiar with the process you have elaborated, thanks but i have confusion on clutter issue still., anyways i will check it myself.



Thanks the links are helpful.



I dont think that SD-10 can be carried on wing tips. Only PL-5/7/9 or Aim-9.

SD-10 can be carried on 4 hardpoints, 2 under each wing.

Click to expand...

It is very fascinating and useful to read your scenarios and they do have a lot of merit behind them.

I was just pulling your leg when I implied you underestimate India etc etc... I know you don't given the maturity, breadth and latitude you cover. I myself for the most part have not much understanding (and I would rather just read about it from learned members like yourself) on the total combined operational side of things (everything gets way too complicated for me)....I am better at analysing specific technologies and counters...and how the give and take, cat and mouse of each stacks up and evolves....i.e I am good at differentiation....not so much at integration in calculus terms

Sarge said:

How close is E-3 related to Pahlcon?

Click to expand...

E-3 is like F-15 of AWACS (in fact it was the aircraft that has lent the term AWACS that everyone else uses), it's legacy goes back a long way and it has evolved over time with upgrades to stay a truly potent and capable system in the field of AEW&C....there have been older and there have been newer ones....but it is the gold standard if you will for most comparisons....and can never be underestimated (just like you should never underestimate a F-15 strike eagle esp if silent eagle upgrade)

Phalcon is much newer generation from the base up, Israelis took the best of what they had (developed a lot jointly with the Americans) and made a dedicated AESA. So in a way its like the F-22 of AWACS world....made ground up to be the best....but quite expensive as well.

Erieye and others are like mirages/rafales/gripens etc....and the russian beriev is like mig 29....all having their own unique performance but all potent systems. I am unsure of where the chinese awacs and DRDO awacs fits into all this "hierarchy"..but no one can really be too much of a slouch I would think given the basics are well known to most countries with industrial base in electronics, science and communications etc....and it depends how you commit to the engineering side of things.

There is no LD-10, operating or ordered by the Pakistan.

Tipu7 said:

Regarding LD10 induction in PAF, I have a theory.

Since this missile is a clone of SD10 with different seeker and have same physical dimensions as its parent missile. So It can be mounted on all those hard points where SD10 can be mounted.
Unlike heavier MAR1, CM102 which are mounted on hardpoints 3,4,5. LD10 can be mounted on hardpoints 1,2,6,7.
Thus even a lonely Jf17 (hypothetical scenario) for SEAD mission will be able to carry 2 SD10, 2LD10, 2LGB, 1ATP at same time, this will give air craft ability to engage radars by ARM & Launchers and Command vehicles by LGB giving it bonus DEAD capability as well as will be able to deal with aerial threat.

So technically despite of shorter range and less payload, LD10 free your precious central hardpoints for carrying heavy munitions which in case of MAR1, CM102 will not be available.

More over, India operate couple of Self Propelled anti air craft systems which have mounted radar, like Tunguska, SA8 Osa, Shilka which can become ''interesting'' targets for anti radiation missiles.

Is my theory bit credible?

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) @Bilal Khan 777 @Blue Marlin @Arsalan @Sarge

Click to expand...

I have another theory. There is no LD10.

Sarge said:

I am talking about an all out open war ofcourse. IAF will be prepared no doubt but taking out the AWACS becomes necessary when it starts conducting offensive ops coming close to LOC. An expected escort for one AWACS will be:
4 X SU30MKI's or
4 X Mig-29's.or
4 X Tejas

One whole IAF squadron (12-18) will get dedicated with 1 X AWACS 24/7 in the air. 8 hours of operational duty for 4 aircrafts means 12 aircrafts for 24 hours. If you increase the amount of AWACS in the sky, whether smaller tactical ones or A-50's, the number of squadrons dedicated to provide escort will also increase.

IAF has roughly 32 Fighter squadrons operational currently. This would mean atleast 2-3 will get occupied in giving escort duties straightaway. and if thats the case, IAF may not put more than 1-2 AWACS in the skies close to LOC.


This is why PAF is now showing interest in ARM missiles. It didnt acquire AGM-88 but started off with MAR-1 , coming to LD-10 and now hearing stories of CM-102.

I kept in mind that India will be ready and mobilized when i made that post. Dont expect me to underestimate India

A comprehensive strike near the border especially using stand off weapons(SOW) is easier and has lots of chances of success than striking 150+ km inside India. This is why SOW are used.

The issue again is that IAF cant do much if a PAF JF-17 armed with LD-10 takes off from FOB near Mianwali, reaches Narowal, drops LD-10 aiming at a radar site near Pathankot and turns back. Wingman is another JF-17 armed with H-4 to destroy SAM site. This is an example. JF-17 may have F-16 escort, reaching Narowal in wartime will alert IAF fighters who will fly upto LOC to engage PAF.

Distance Narowal to Pathankot =75km
LD-10 range =85 km
H-4 Range = 120km

Going 150km + inside India, with IAF CAP's/ SAM sites coverage and AWACS in wartime will not be easy for PAF. For targets at longer ranges Pakistan will use ALCM's, CM's etc.


The point of analysing them during pre conflict or conflict is because :

1. Placement of AWACS hampers enemy airforce operations in that area. Its a force multiplier that can change odds in favour instantly.
2. It also decides which weapons (CM's or fighter carried) can be used to to counter different threats.
3. One of the points of getting LD-10, which is based on SD-10 is to target aerial radar targets.


the integration of IAF AWACS to SAM sites is possible but not done i think.


It would have been interesting but yeah such calculations would take up lot of time and chances of error are too high. Plus will need a simulation to test.



How close is E-3 related to Pahlcon?


I am familiar with the process you have elaborated, thanks but i have confusion on clutter issue still., anyways i will check it myself.



Thanks the links are helpful.



I dont think that SD-10 can be carried on wing tips. Only PL-5/7/9 or Aim-9.

SD-10 can be carried on 4 hardpoints, 2 under each wing.

Click to expand...

Tom Clancy, are we?

There is no H4, and no LD10 on JFT.

Bilal Khan 777 said:

Tom Clancy, are we?

There is no H4, and no LD10 on JFT.

Click to expand...

Describing "IF"

Introducing a conditional clause:

synonyms: on condition that, provided (that), providing (that), presuming (that), supposing (that),assuming (that), on the assumption that, allowing (that), as long as, given that, with the provision/proviso that, with/on the understanding that, if and only if, contingent on,in the event that, allowing that.

Sarge said:

Describing "IF"

Introducing a conditional clause:

synonyms: on condition that, provided (that), providing (that), presuming (that), supposing (that),assuming (that), on the assumption that, allowing (that), as long as, given that, with the provision/proviso that, with/on the understanding that, if and only if, contingent on,in the event that, allowing that.

Click to expand...

Sure, IF we install Shaheen, and Ghauri, and Nasr on JFT, and also put AMRAMM and all BLU series at Mushaf on it as well, and imagine AIM9x in a dream and install it with rubber bands.

Only IF you kept it "real" and "believable"