# Pakistan receives LD-10 Anti-radiation missiles



## Gryphon

_LD-10 ARM_

SIPRI reports that Pakistan has received 50 (out of 100 ordered) LD-10 anti-radiation missiles from China in 2014 and 2015. These missiles were ordered in 2011.





_Source: SIPRI_

Reactions: Like Like:
40


----------



## GR!FF!N

The LD-10 air-to-surface anti-radiation missile is a variant of the SD-10A missile meant for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), similar to Raytheon's High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). The LD-10 retains the overall aerodynamic layout of the SD-10A, but has the active radar seeker of the SD-10A replaced with a new passive radar-homing seeker.

The LD-10 has been designed such as to be retrofitted faster and with minimal modifications to launch platforms, which have been cleared for use with the SD-10A missile. These include the J-8, J-10, J-11 and the JF-17. The missile was marketed with a maximum range of 80 km with a 20 kg warhead.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Blue Marlin

i thought pakistan has purchased the cm-102 with the extended range?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sulman Badshah

it was already posted when sipri updated the year ...



Blue Marlin said:


> i thought pakistan has purchased the cm-102 with the extended range?


CM 102 and LD 10 both are integerated into JF17 .... But i haven't seen both of them Pakistan AF inventory yet ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blue Marlin

Sulman Badshah said:


> it was already posted when sipri updated the year ...
> 
> 
> CM 102 and LD 10 both are integerated into JF17 .... But i haven't seen both of them Pakistan AF inventory yet ...


since arm's are strategic weapons i dont think you will see them too soon. there has been pics of the mar-1 though.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Muhammad Omar

180 Missile for LY-80 nice... 

hmm interesting we bought 400 missiles for FM-90

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TOPGUN

Very good news indeed !!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

LD-10 range is 80km?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## I S I

Beautiful


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Is there a link to the source sounds awfully nice that we have all these SAM missiles in public domain

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## raazh

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _Source: SIPRI_



Last three items are interesting. All for (S20) Type 041 subs including Anti Ship missile. The order was in 2014 then I think it is safe to assume that the deal for these subs was signed either in 2014 or before 2014.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shirazrk

ohhhhh.. thats a beauty!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

raazh said:


> Last three items are interesting. All for (S20) Type 041 subs including Anti Ship missile. The order was in 2014 then I think it is safe to assume that the deal for these subs was signed either in 2014 or before 2014.


I was thinking on same line, @Rashid Mahmood sir looking forward for your comments,armament is being purchased before platform why,either deal was made public late or something else.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dil Pakistan

What about MAR-1 then....?

Didn't we have 100 of them as well...!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

Dil Pakistan said:


> What about MAR-1 then....?
> 
> Didn't we have 100 of them as well...!!!!



Maybe were building up arsenals of alternative missiles

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Dil Pakistan said:


> What about MAR-1 then....?
> 
> Didn't we have 100 of them as well...!!!!



yep we do, all 100 were delivered.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Basel

Dazzler said:


> yep we do, all 100 were delivered.



What is the difference between MAR-1, LD-10 & CM-102?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Basel said:


> What is the difference between MAR-1, LD-10 & CM-102?



MAR-1 has an edge over LD-10 in range and some undisclosed guidance modes. It is expensive for a reason. LD-10 is based on a tested framd that works but does have effective seeker, passive mode and excellent kill probability. both r good alternatives to the HARM I would say.

CM101 is still not well known and has more speculations than performance data.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mrc

I think one advantage of LD 10 on others is that its based SD 10 A... the basic BVR missile of JF. So practically it will take no time to re arm an aircraft with LD 10... no wastage of time on ground maximising time in air...

Also it would be impossible to guess which aircraft is using AAM and which one going after radars with ARM...thats what i can think off top of my head

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blue Marlin

Dazzler said:


> MAR-1 has an edge over LD-10 in range and some undisclosed guidance modes. It is expensive for a reason. LD-10 is based on a tested framd that works but does have effective seeker, passive mode and excellent kill probability. both r good alternatives to the HARM I would say.
> 
> CM101 is still not well known and has more speculations than performance data.


is the ld-10 air to surface or air to air?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> i thought pakistan has purchased the cm-102 with the extended range?


both systems are being integrated. I think we will see some CM102 bought as well soon.
PAF is in process of integrating a wide range of weapon systems and mission PODS as well but purchases will be made as funds allow and need arise! One key objective is to get a wide range of weapons integrated to offer for export market. A wise approach!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MadDog

PAF also possesses MAR-1 anti radiation missiles, whats the difference between the two !!!


----------



## MadDog

Whats the difference between AS & ASW torpedo !!!


----------



## untitled

Blue Marlin said:


> is the ld-10 air to surface or air to air?



It is an anti radiation (radar) missile so the answer should be ...... ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Arsalan said:


> both systems are being integrated. I think we will see some CM102 bought as well soon.
> PAF is in process of integrating a wide range of weapon systems and mission PODS as well but purchases will be made as funds allow and need arise! One key objective is to get a wide range of weapons integrated to offer for export market. A wise approach!


hows it going arslan? long time no see.
i read an article where the jf-17 was featured in an airshow and the pakistani being interviewed said the range of the cm-102 can be extended 50% or even beyond.
so its highly likely this wil be used for long distance sead missions.








member.exe said:


> It is an anti radiation (radar) missile so the answer should be ...... ?


could be air based too.....it could engage awacs

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## war&peace

It is a great news. In laymen's terms, it is counter measure for anti-missile systems likes S-300 and 400. That basically means that enemy cannot use missile defence shields with impunity and nuclear strike will remain a viable strategic option for the commanders.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Anubis

member.exe said:


> It is an anti radiation (radar) missile so the answer should be ...... ?


There are air-to-air anti radiation missiles too...Vympel R-27 has an anti-radiation mod.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## untitled

Anubis said:


> There are air-to-air anti radiation missiles too...Vympel R-27 has an anti-radiation mod.



Are their any surface to air anti radiation missiles?


----------



## war&peace

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Is there a link to the source sounds awfully nice that we have all these SAM missiles in public domain


These are not exactly in public domain and forces are not very keen on releasing the exact numbers and models though such info get leaked from time to time...either with or without any purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Anubis

member.exe said:


> Are their any surface to air anti radiation missiles?


Yep...HQ9 has an anti-radiation variant...Pakistan probably has the variant in its arsenal.


----------



## Falcon26

war&peace said:


> It is a great news. In laymen's terms, it is counter measure for anti-missile systems likes S-300 and 400. That basically means that enemy cannot use missile defence shields with impunity and nuclear strike will remain a viable strategic option for the commanders.



India has been investing billions in acquiring electronic countermeasures and jamming tech from Israel & the west since 2009. How do you factor the effectiveness of these anti radiation missiles in light of these Indian acquisition?


----------



## war&peace

Falcon26 said:


> India has been investing billions in acquiring electronic countermeasures and jamming tech from Israel & the west since 2009. How do you factor the effectiveness of these anti radiation missiles in light of these Indian acquisition?


That lays waste. India makes plans and Pakistan counters and they end up wasting billions of dollars. It is the fate for all of their designs...india spent billions of dollar on building quick response force under the cold start doctrine and Pakistan responded with a TNW NASR and those billions of dollars now lay waste and India can't strike Pakistan without the war escalating into full fledge nuke exchange and India couldn't believe and even Uncle Sam couldn't help India other than spewing some hot puffs from his rear end and settling down on reclining chair.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Signalian

Falcon26 said:


> India has been investing billions in acquiring electronic countermeasures and jamming tech from Israel & the west since 2009. How do you factor the effectiveness of these anti radiation missiles in light of these Indian acquisition?



Sir, if you know a bit about EW and ECM systems, you would know that a jamming signal or electronic countermeasure signal increases attraction of an AR-missile towards it. Do Read about "Home on jam" on google.

A good way to jam a AR-Missile is to switch off the radar which ARM has targeted .and if its a mobile radar, change location.



war&peace said:


> It is a great news. In laymen's terms, it is counter measure for anti-missile systems likes S-300 and 400. That basically means that enemy cannot use missile defence shields with impunity and nuclear strike will remain a viable strategic option for the commanders.



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.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mrc

Sarge said:


> Sir, if you know a bit about EW and ECM systems, you would know that a jamming signal or electronic countermeasure signal increases attraction of an AR-missile towards it. Do Read about "Home on jam" on google.
> 
> A good way to jam a AR-Missile is to switch off the radar which ARM has targeted .and if its a mobile radar, change location.




This brings me to question in my mind... does a mobile radar in real life wiuld be able to detect an ARM launch and change position in time?? Can ARM launch be detected in time and with accuracy to turn off radar??


----------



## Signalian

Mrc said:


> This brings me to question in my mind... does a mobile radar in real life wiuld be able to detect an ARM launch and change position in time?? Can ARM launch be detected in time and with accuracy to turn off radar??


Most ECM aircraft use jamming techniques and fire ARM's.

If the Mobile radar encounters jamming in operations and unwanted signals/frequency from surroundings causing distortion in its operation , the radar commander should know that jamming is in effect and ARM could be on the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mrc

Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Mrc said:


> Thanks


just to add, modern radar system know what kind of enemy aircraft is coming and what weapons its carrying so yes an ARM launch can be detected.

This is another reason why stealth aircraft carry weapons in internal bays.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mrc

Sarge said:


> just to add, modern radar system know what kind of enemy aircraft is coming and what weapons its carrying so yes an ARM launch can be detected.
> 
> This is another reason why stealth aircraft carry weapons in internal bays.




That actually i guess will give LD 10 an advantage ...since it nearly identicle to SD 10...and every aircraft will be carrying SD 10 any way....so...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Signalian

PAF is adding ARM's in inventory to target the following list 

https://defence.pk/threads/indian-radar-systems.52874/

plus add Spyder SAM Radar on target list as well as other indian modern ground radar acquistions.


----------



## Falcon26

war&peace said:


> That lays waste. India makes plans and Pakistan counters and they end up wasting billions of dollars. It is the fate for all of their designs...india spent billions of dollar on building quick response force under the cold start doctrine and Pakistan responded with a TNW NASR and those billions of dollars now lay waste and India can't strike Pakistan without the war escalating into full fledge nuke exchange and India couldn't believe and even Uncle Sam couldn't help India other than spewing some hot puffs from his rear end and settling down on reclining chair.



Thanks for your reply. I will disagree that these Anti-Radiation missiles will lay to waste billions India spent on ecm & other jamming technologies. These ARMs missiles might take out couple of these air defense systems but to believe that they will bust the deeply integrated and numerically numerous indian systems is simply outlandish. If you make a list of equipment India has signed to receive since 2009, you will understand that almost all these weapons are optimized to inflict maximum damage within 72-hours of a conflict and attain air superiority over Pakistani skies. India's overwhelming numerical advantage coupled with weapons that are at least a generation above what Pakistan has will most likely ensure that these ARMs won't amount to much in a time of conflict between the two countries.

Operationalization of NISR during periods of war will open a Pandora's box that's best left lid.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## war&peace

Falcon26 said:


> Thanks for your reply. I will disagree that these Anti-Radiation missiles will lay to waste billions India spent on ecm & other jamming technologies. These ARMs missiles might take out couple of these air defense systems but to believe that they will bust the deeply integrated and numerically numerous indian systems is simply outlandish. If you make a list of equipment India has signed to receive since 2009, you will understand that almost all these weapons are optimized to inflict maximum damage within 72-hours of a conflict and attain air superiority over Pakistani skies. India's overwhelming numerical advantage coupled with weapons that are at least a generation above what Pakistan has will most likely ensure that these ARMs won't amount to much in a time of conflict between the two countries.
> 
> Operationalization of NISR during periods of war will open a Pandora's box that's best left lid.


Thanks for your reply. The name of the missile is NASR and not NISR ( a typical Indian trait) and it has laid their designs to the waste and that's a bitter pill for you to swallow and that has left their planners butt-hurt.


----------



## Falcon26

war&peace said:


> No thanks for your reply. The name of the missile is NASR and not NISR ( a typical Indian trait) and it has laid your designs to the waste and that's a bitter pill for you to swallow and that has left your country butthurt. Just try burnol at national scale.



I am not an Indian at all but thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Ali Sinan

Basel said:


> What is the difference between MAR-1, LD-10 & CM-102?


Range payload and most importantly price.



Sarge said:


> Sir, if you know a bit about EW and ECM systems, you would know that a jamming signal or electronic countermeasure signal increases attraction of an AR-missile towards it. Do Read about "Home on jam" on google.
> 
> A good way to jam a AR-Missile is to switch off the radar which ARM has targeted .and if its a mobile radar, change location.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


For S-400 we have Ra'ad but my dear India still not finalize the deal when they you will come to know what counter we have planned.


----------



## Gryphon

Anubis said:


> Yep...HQ9 has an anti-radiation variant...Pakistan probably has the variant in its arsenal.



No HQ-9 system is in service (yet).


----------



## Blue Marlin

war&peace said:


> That lays waste. India makes plans and Pakistan counters and they end up wasting billions of dollars. It is the fate for all of their designs...india spent billions of dollar on building quick response force under the cold start doctrine and Pakistan responded with a TNW NASR and those billions of dollars now lay waste and India can't strike Pakistan without the war escalating into full fledge nuke exchange and India couldn't believe and even Uncle Sam couldn't help India other than spewing some hot puffs from his rear end and settling down on reclining chair.


arm's is not a simple solution to lr-sams it just makes them harder to get at it successfully

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zebra7

war&peace said:


> That lays waste. India makes plans and Pakistan counters and they end up wasting billions of dollars. It is the fate for all of their designs...india spent billions of dollar on building quick response force under the cold start doctrine and Pakistan responded with a TNW NASR and those billions of dollars now lay waste and India can't strike Pakistan without the war escalating into full fledge nuke exchange and India couldn't believe and even Uncle Sam couldn't help India other than spewing some hot puffs from his rear end and settling down on reclining chair.



Those comments reminds me of a story of an Ostrich which puts its head inside the Sand and predict she is safe in a storm. But BTW fantasy for Moral Boast.

On topic, and some FUNNY PART There have been some discussion of MAR-1 and LD-10 anti-radiation missile, but funny part is did any member here questioned whether MAR-1 is A2A Missile or LD-10 is a A2G anti-radiation Missile.

MAR-1 is an anti radiation missile, which is meant to attack the illuminating Ground Radar.
LD-10 is a SD-10 Derivative with anti radiation Seeker to attack the fighter planes which is guided toward the illuminating on board radar of the plane.




Sarge said:


> Sir, if you know a bit about EW and ECM systems, you would know that a jamming signal or electronic countermeasure signal increases attraction of an AR-missile towards it. Do Read about "Home on jam" on google.
> 
> A good way to jam a AR-Missile is to switch off the radar which ARM has targeted .and if its a mobile radar, change location.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.



Nice Points, but I would like to add some more

1. In Simple words, the ARM missile fly toward the illuminating source, aka Radar, but since technology is changing, so do the Radars, which is now becoming LPI with low probability of detection, with AESA Seaker, the ARM missile Seaker should be able to pick the Frequency of the Radar, on which the missile will ride.

2. As far as S-400 air defence system is concerned, actually its very robust system, and I don't think it have any threat from the ARM missile such as MAR-1, owing due to range factor, which the carrier plane won't be able to come that much close to it to deliver. Also the S-400 System have a very strong layer of protection for itself and could shoot the ARM missile itself before it do any harm.

3. During the War time, the Radars are mostly kept in Silent mode, and are illuminating for just a couple of seconds, before going silent again.

4. Counter measures for the ARM missile are not Jammers, rather its the Deception which is Aerial illuminating deception decoy such as Aerial MK-2 decoy, which Su-30MKI is gonna getting with the Super Sukhoi upgrades.









Ali Sinan said:


> For S-400 we have Ra'ad but my dear India still not finalize the deal when they you will come to know what counter we have planned.



I assume Raa'd has been declared by Pakistan as the Strategic Weapon, which means it is not going to use in the conventional attack, because all its attack, will be considered as the Nuclear attack whenever it is detected via flight profile.

And what makes you think, that this subsonic missile could not be blown in the air with its Pantysr system.

And again FUNNY part is that the Strategic Missile like Raa'd is going to be used for against S-400 system, which is highly mobile. Does Raa'd is going to feed Pakistani control room all live pictures, and detection via data link back, and then the PAF or PA engineers are gonna feed instructions back, to change its course or the target, or the Raa'd has its own brain and will take few rounds of the area, before detecting the target, and then attack the S-400 system, something like attacking UAV like Heron. LOLZ


----------



## Ali Sinan

zebra7 said:


> I assume Raa'd has been declared by Pakistan as the Strategic Weapon, which means it is not going to use in the conventional attack, because all its attack, will be considered as the Nuclear attack whenever it is detected via flight profile.
> 
> And what makes you think, that this subsonic missile could not be blown in the air with its Pantysr system.


Don't assume too much Babur and Ra'ad both will be used for conventional and nuclear strike.....


----------



## zebra7

Ali Sinan said:


> Don't assume too much Babur and Ra'ad both will be used for conventional and nuclear strike.....



Keep Dreaming. You see this is the Blunder what pakistan had made by declaring their Babur, Raa'd, NASR as the strategic weapon. Ok tell why didn't India inducted Prahar and Shaurya Missile. 

And for the Kid like you, should first study that missiles like Babur or Raa'd can strike the fixed ground target, because they hom toward the target via terrain guidance via matching the ground images, and detect the target during the final decend by matching the images of the target, which is feed inside the missile prior to the launch.


----------



## Ali Sinan

zebra7 said:


> Keep Dreaming. You see this is the Blunder what pakistan had made by declaring their Babur, Raa'd, NASR as the strategic weapon. Ok tell why didn't India inducted Prahar and Shaurya Missile.


Don't talk nonsense kiddy we put u r cold start in u r rear end OK check the facts...



zebra7 said:


> And for the Kid like you, should first study that missiles like Babur or Raa'd can strike the fixed ground target, because they hom toward the target via terrain guidance via matching the ground images, and detect the target during the final decend by matching the images of the target, which is feed inside the missile prior to the launch.


And for a stupid like you I am talking about SAMs just read my posts and S-400 or any other SAM battery can't move like bus or mortar they have to place and secure the area which means any recent drone or satellite photos could be used to destroy it with Babur or Nasr ...even Ghaznavi a ballistic missile is quite capable with 5 to 10 meter CEP.

Now cry me a river.....moron

Bhai Zebra bhi ghadha (donkey) hi hota hai...Just a fact....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Devil Soul

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _LD-10 ARM_
> 
> SIPRI reports that Pakistan has received 50 (out of 100 ordered) LD-10 anti-radiation missiles from China in 2014 and 2015. These missiles were ordered in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: SIPRI_


Beautiful

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

zebra7 said:


> Those comments reminds me of a story of an Ostrich which puts its head inside the Sand and predict she is safe in a storm. But BTW fantasy for Moral Boast.
> 
> On topic, and some FUNNY PART There have been some discussion of MAR-1 and LD-10 anti-radiation missile, but funny part is did any member here questioned whether MAR-1 is A2A Missile or LD-10 is a A2G anti-radiation Missile.
> 
> MAR-1 is an anti radiation missile, which is meant to attack the illuminating Ground Radar.
> LD-10 is a SD-10 Derivative with anti radiation Seeker to attack the fighter planes which is guided toward the illuminating on board radar of the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice Points, but I would like to add some more
> 
> 1. In Simple words, the ARM missile fly toward the illuminating source, aka Radar, but since technology is changing, so do the Radars, which is now becoming LPI with low probability of detection, with AESA Seaker, the ARM missile Seaker should be able to pick the Frequency of the Radar, on which the missile will ride.
> 
> 2. As far as S-400 air defence system is concerned, actually its very robust system, and I don't think it have any threat from the ARM missile such as MAR-1, owing due to range factor, which the carrier plane won't be able to come that much close to it to deliver. Also the S-400 System have a very strong layer of protection for itself and could shoot the ARM missile itself before it do any harm.
> 
> 3. During the War time, the Radars are mostly kept in Silent mode, and are illuminating for just a couple of seconds, before going silent again.
> 
> 4. Counter measures for the ARM missile are not Jammers, rather its the Deception which is Aerial illuminating deception decoy such as Aerial MK-2 decoy, which Su-30MKI is gonna getting with the Super Sukhoi upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume Raa'd has been declared by Pakistan as the Strategic Weapon, which means it is not going to use in the conventional attack, because all its attack, will be considered as the Nuclear attack whenever it is detected via flight profile.
> 
> And what makes you think, that this subsonic missile could not be blown in the air with its Pantysr system.
> 
> And again FUNNY part is that the Strategic Missile like Raa'd is going to be used for against S-400 system, which is highly mobile. Does Raa'd is going to feed Pakistani control room all live pictures, and detection via data link back, and then the PAF or PA engineers are gonna feed instructions back, to change its course or the target, or the Raa'd has its own brain and will take few rounds of the area, before detecting the target, and then attack the S-400 system, something like attacking UAV like Heron. LOLZ


the chinese are very interesting people, they have a modular approach when it come to their weapons. what are the chances that the arm unit can be mounted to lets say..... the c802. thats just a thought.

the mar1 is a specailist missile which would have undisclosed technical aspects to it, i wouldn't render it useless just yet.

the ld-10 would likely be for air targets whiich would "sniff" and follow the scent to said awac, tanker etc..... 

the cm-102 would likely be for ground based targets and would have an extended range. one thing i would like to remind you of is that the s400 has a instrument range of 400km. pakistan operates small singled engined fighters and would go easily within the 400km instrument range to about 300km. but if its coming from skimming altitude then that range would be closer to about 80km where the s400's short range protection systems (tor-m2 and later morfey) has a instrument range of about 70km. but what are the chances it would dectect a mar 1 at that range?

what anti radar missiles does india have?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Basel

Mrc said:


> That actually i guess will give LD 10 an advantage ...since it nearly identicle to SD 10...and every aircraft will be carrying SD 10 any way....so...



LD-10 allow more missiles to be carried on JFT because it could be mounted on dual racks an will be good against close range FCRs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

zebra7 said:


> Nice Points, but I would like to add some more
> 
> 1. In Simple words, the ARM missile fly toward the illuminating source, aka Radar, but since technology is changing, so do the Radars, which is now becoming LPI with low probability of detection, with AESA Seaker, the ARM missile Seaker should be able to pick the Frequency of the Radar, on which the missile will ride.


I have searched for an LPI Radar in Indian Armed Forces use and didnt find any. I just checked for the modern radar systems. The S-300 uses TOMBSTONE Radar which has LPI functionality, the S-400 uses GRAVESTONE Radar which doesnt have LPI functionality. The Spyder SAM system uses ELM 2106 or ELM 2084 radar, but the LPI radar of Elta is ELM 2140 and is not an Air surveillance radar but ground surveillance radar to detect ground troops. If you have information of any Land based LPI radars under use of IAF, do share.

Surprisingly,I did find an LPI Radar under Pakistan Air Force use which is Crotale system Radar. Power managed systems such as French CROTALE have been placed in land based LPI radar category. Experience has shown that CROTALE is capable of quickly acquiring a target and decreasing its transmitting power to maintain a minimal SNR. This makes it very difficult for a hostile receiver to detect unless special techniques are employed (McRitchie and McDonald 1999, ).




> 2. As far as S-400 air defence system is concerned, actually its very robust system, and I don't think it have any threat from the ARM missile such as MAR-1, owing due to range factor, which the carrier plane won't be able to come that much close to it to deliver. Also the S-400 System have a very strong layer of protection for itself and could shoot the ARM missile itself before it do any harm.


Taking out an S-400 system protected by layers of many SAM's is tricky but not impossible. PAF is slowly adding ARM's to its inventory and the ranges of ARM's are increasing. It depends where IAF places an S-400, escorting SAM's and IAF aerial assets and how PAF utilizes waypoints to avoid detection,terrain camouflaging to avoid decetion, jamming, stand off weapons, ARM's, UAV's/UCAV's, decoys and electronic deception techniques. 



> 3. During the War time, the Radars are mostly kept in Silent mode, and are illuminating for just a couple of seconds, before going silent again.


This may or may not be true. A switched off radar is useless in war time as it cannot guide own aircrafts for strikes also neither can it utilise SAM's rendering SAM's useless also. However AWAC's in the air can be a replacement for detecting incoming PAF strikes but again it depends how closely its flying to the border to keep an eye on incursions by PAF jets. A radar used for couple of seconds and then switched off may not be even worth destroying as its already useless. In any case, PAF will devise strategies and adjust its tactics accordingly to situation.




> 4. Counter measures for the ARM missile are not Jammers, rather its the Deception which is Aerial illuminating deception decoy such as Aerial MK-2 decoy, which Su-30MKI is gonna getting with the Super Sukhoi upgrades.


PAF wont be targeting SU30MKI with ARM's. PAF has many other ways to tackle SU30MKI.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Basel

zebra7 said:


> Those comments reminds me of a story of an Ostrich which puts its head inside the Sand and predict she is safe in a storm. But BTW fantasy for Moral Boast.
> 
> On topic, and some FUNNY PART There have been some discussion of MAR-1 and LD-10 anti-radiation missile, but funny part is did any member here questioned whether MAR-1 is A2A Missile or LD-10 is a A2G anti-radiation Missile.
> 
> MAR-1 is an anti radiation missile, which is meant to attack the illuminating Ground Radar.
> LD-10 is a SD-10 Derivative with anti radiation Seeker to attack the fighter planes which is guided toward the illuminating on board radar of the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice Points, but I would like to add some more
> 
> 1. In Simple words, the ARM missile fly toward the illuminating source, aka Radar, but since technology is changing, so do the Radars, which is now becoming LPI with low probability of detection, with AESA Seaker, the ARM missile Seaker should be able to pick the Frequency of the Radar, on which the missile will ride.
> 
> 2. As far as S-400 air defence system is concerned, actually its very robust system, and I don't think it have any threat from the ARM missile such as MAR-1, owing due to range factor, which the carrier plane won't be able to come that much close to it to deliver. Also the S-400 System have a very strong layer of protection for itself and could shoot the ARM missile itself before it do any harm.
> 
> 3. During the War time, the Radars are mostly kept in Silent mode, and are illuminating for just a couple of seconds, before going silent again.
> 
> 4. Counter measures for the ARM missile are not Jammers, rather its the Deception which is Aerial illuminating deception decoy such as Aerial MK-2 decoy, which Su-30MKI is gonna getting with the Super Sukhoi upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume Raa'd has been declared by Pakistan as the Strategic Weapon, which means it is not going to use in the conventional attack, because all its attack, will be considered as the Nuclear attack whenever it is detected via flight profile.
> 
> And what makes you think, that this subsonic missile could not be blown in the air with its Pantysr system.
> 
> And again FUNNY part is that the Strategic Missile like Raa'd is going to be used for against S-400 system, which is highly mobile. Does Raa'd is going to feed Pakistani control room all live pictures, and detection via data link back, and then the PAF or PA engineers are gonna feed instructions back, to change its course or the target, or the Raa'd has its own brain and will take few rounds of the area, before detecting the target, and then attack the S-400 system, something like attacking UAV like Heron. LOLZ



Babar will be used for deep strikes including SEAD/DEAD.

Pakistan must get YJ-12 including its ARM version which can hit upto 400km.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## zebra7

Blue Marlin said:


> the chinese are very interesting people, they have a modular approach when it come to their weapons. what are the chances that the arm unit can be mounted to lets say..... the c802. thats just a thought.
> 
> the mar1 is a specailist missile which would have undisclosed technical aspects to it, i wouldn't render it useless just yet.
> 
> the ld-10 would likely be for air targets whiich would "sniff" and follow the scent to said awac, tanker etc.....
> 
> the cm-102 would likely be for ground based targets and would have an extended range. one thing i would like to remind you of is that the s400 has a instrument range of 400km. pakistan operates small singled engined fighters and would go easily within the 400km instrument range to about 300km. but if its coming from skimming altitude then that range would be closer to about 80km where the s400's short range protection systems (tor-m2 and later morfey) has a instrument range of about 70km. but what are the chances it would dectect a mar 1 at that range?
> 
> what anti radar missiles does india have?



In case of what India have, did you forgot the development of *NGARM Missile* (Range 100-125 km) been developed by the DRDO.

From Russia

*KH 31 PD* -- A2G

*Novatar KS–172* ARM Missile -- Range 300 KM and 400 KM (Anti Awaac) -- Under Development.

*R-27EP* _AA-10 Alamo-F_, a longer range passive anti-radiation missile with a range of up to 70 nm (110 km)

Future and Indian Interest

*AGM-88 HARM *This is U.S missiles, but Indian Airforce seems to be interesting in it. May be it could be attached with the Rafale deal, with french-U.S, or Indo-US deal have to be made.

*KH-58USHKE *

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/



Basel said:


> Babar will be used for deep strikes including SEAD/DEAD.
> 
> Pakistan must get YJ-12 including its ARM version which can hit upto 400km.



Are you MTCR Signatory ??


----------



## Blue Marlin

zebra7 said:


> In case of what India have, did you forgot the development of *NGARM Missile* (Range 100-125 km) been developed by the DRDO.
> 
> From Russia
> 
> *KH 31 PD* -- A2G
> 
> *Novatar KS–172* ARM Missile -- Range 300 KM and 400 KM (Anti Awaac) -- Under Development.
> 
> *R-27EP* _AA-10 Alamo-F_, a longer range passive anti-radiation missile with a range of up to 70 nm (110 km)
> 
> Future and Indian Interest
> 
> *AGM-88 HARM *This is U.S missiles, but Indian Airforce seems to be interesting in it. May be it could be attached with the Rafale deal, with french-U.S, or Indo-US deal have to be made.
> 
> *KH-58USHKE *
> 
> http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/
> 
> 
> 
> Are you MTCR Signatory ??


interesting missiles you go there, and oh your quote to the other guy............ pakistan already has the c602 what has been modded so it has a range of 400km+ that was easy as the original missile had a range of 400km+. same thing applies to the yj-12, well thats if pakistan goes for such an old missile which i doubt.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zebra7

Sarge said:


> I have searched for an LPI Radar in Indian Armed Forces use and didnt find any. I just checked for the modern radar systems. The S-300 uses TOMBSTONE Radar which has LPI functionality, the S-400 uses GRAVESTONE Radar which doesnt have LPI functionality. The Spyder SAM system uses ELM 2106 or ELM 2084 radar, but the LPI radar of Elta is ELM 2140 and is not an Air surveillance radar but ground surveillance radar to detect ground troops. If you have information of any Land based LPI radars under use of IAF, do share.
> 
> Surprisingly,I did find an LPI Radar under Pakistan Air Force use which is Crotale system Radar. Power managed systems such as French CROTALE have been placed in land based LPI radar category. Experience has shown that CROTALE is capable of quickly acquiring a target and decreasing its transmitting power to maintain a minimal SNR. This makes it very difficult for a hostile receiver to detect unless special techniques are employed (McRitchie and McDonald 1999, ).



With the technology advancement, more and more modern Radar have LPI mode. With LPI means, that the emitting Radio waves are not scattered, rather shaped to make it difficult for the detection, also the Use of very high frequecy or quickly changing the frequency or the band, will make it difficult for the detector on board of the missile to hom toward the emission. All Modern PESA and AESA Radars are LPI radars.



Sarge said:


> Taking out an S-400 system protected by layers of many SAM's is tricky but not impossible. PAF is slowly adding ARM's to its inventory and the ranges of ARM's are increasing. It depends where IAF places an S-400, escorting SAM's and IAF aerial assets and how PAF utilizes waypoints to avoid detection,terrain camouflaging to avoid decetion, jamming, stand off weapons, ARM's, UAV's/UCAV's, decoys and electronic deception techniques.



Actually, every Modern Airforce is adding its ARM capability, and it is a must for the SEAD operation. IAF have long ago acquired this capability by acquiring the ARM missile both A2A (R-27) and A2G (KH series) Missiles, and also have Heron UAVs which could circle around the radar, pick up the target and strike it from Israel.



Sarge said:


> This may or may not be true. A switched off radar is useless in war time as it cannot guide own aircrafts for strikes also neither can it utilise SAM's rendering SAM's useless also. However AWAC's in the air can be a replacement for detecting incoming PAF strikes but again it depends how closely its flying to the border to keep an eye on incursions by PAF jets. A radar used for couple of seconds and then switched off may not be even worth destroying as its already useless. In any case, PAF will devise strategies and adjust its tactics accordingly to situation.



Sorry to Say, but this is in reality how the Radar works during war time. The radar is turned on only for few seconds to radiate its radio waves in the sky, and then put to the listening mode, to listen to the returning signals and its analysis. No radar is emitting all the time.



Sarge said:


> PAF wont be targeting SU30MKI with ARM's. PAF has many other ways to tackle SU30MKI.



I Specifically saying about the Super Sukhoi MKI with the SEAD/DEAD configuration, which would include the SIVA HADF pod -- This is the Pod, which gives the precise coordinates of the Radar, and without that, no ARM could be fired. Jammers for the protection of the planes against the SAM threat, and the Aerial Decoy MK-2 which would create number of fake targets in the sky.



Blue Marlin said:


> interesting missiles you go there, and oh your quote to the other guy............ pakistan already has the c602 what has been modded so it has a range of 400km+ that was easy as the original missile had a range of 400km+. same thing applies to the yj-12, well thats if pakistan goes for such an old missile which i doubt.



Dear Marlin, its not the ARM missile what matters, rather the precise detection of the Radar, Airdefence that matters. For example, if you want to deliver the ARM missile on the Ground SAM system, then you can't depend on the RWR warning system to give you the coordinates, because it will only gave you the warning, type, and the direction, rather a HADF Pod, which will give the precise coordinates, which will be feed and programmed to the on board ARM missile before launching. In case of IAF, we have SIVA HADF pod, which could do the Job, so you should ask the Pakistani members how are you gonna detect the Radar, and its position.

Second, when we talk about the SEAD and the DEAD operation, now the IAF are going to get a good capability with Super Sukhoi with SEAD aka Kriniti Jammer, Aerial Decoy MK-2, Siva HADF, 6 KH-31PD ARM, and Jaguar/Rafale F3R for DEAD operation. For DEAD operation, Super Sukhoi armed with 6 Brahmos-NG per aircraft, gives hell lot of capability. Did you realized, why IAF send its Jaguars and MKI to the Nevada for the exercise in USA, so that to learn, and develop new tactics. Did you realized why IAF goes for the sucidal UAV Herons from Israel for the ARM attack on the Radar installation for the SEAD operation. Do you realized, why India is investing in K-100 Navator long range radar to target the AWAACS to make them blind. In short, to cripple our western enemy airdefence and airsuperiority within 72 hours.


----------



## Mrc

LD 10 has already ignited fires on other side of border....


----------



## Signalian

zebra7 said:


> With the technology advancement, more and more modern Radar have LPI mode. With LPI means, that the emitting Radio waves are not scattered, rather shaped to make it difficult for the detection, also the Use of very high frequecy or quickly changing the frequency or the band, will make it difficult for the detector on board of the missile to hom toward the emission. All Modern PESA and AESA Radars are LPI radars.


Electronically Scanned Antennas (ESAs) can be used to produce irregular scan patterns by creating multiple beams to search different scan volumes at different frequencies but that alone doesnt qualify them as LPI. Need to have other properties also like ultra low side lobes, very high sensitivity range, random signal radars (RSR)(correlates the returning signal with a delayed sample of the transmitted signal) and other factors which qualify only a few AESA/PESA as LPI.
SAR and MW radars can also be LPI. FLIR/IRST system can qualify to some extent as LPI. Need to have all characteristics available 



> Actually, every Modern Airforce is adding its ARM capability, and it is a must for the SEAD operation. IAF have long ago acquired this capability by acquiring the ARM missile both A2A (R-27) and A2G (KH series) Missiles, and also have Heron UAVs which could circle around the radar, pick up the target and strike it from Israel.


IAF SEAD/DEAD tech can be discussed in Indian defence section, we are discussing PAF ARM capabilities here, not PAF AD systems to counter IAF ARM tech. 



> Sorry to Say, but this is in reality how the Radar works during war time. The radar is turned on only for few seconds to radiate its radio waves in the sky, and then put to the listening mode, to listen to the returning signals and its analysis. No radar is emitting all the time.


Although i disagree as not only SAM network gets severely affected but also radar needs to transmit next pulse to listen to its response and for that it needs to be switched on again. Anyways, lets assume its switched on for a few seconds and then switched off. The inertial guidance system of ARM can still lead the missile towards it.



> I Specifically saying about the Super Sukhoi MKI with the SEAD/DEAD configuration, which would include the SIVA HADF pod -- This is the Pod, which gives the precise coordinates of the Radar, and without that, no ARM could be fired. Jammers for the protection of the planes against the SAM threat, and the Aerial Decoy MK-2 which would create number of fake targets in the sky.


May i remind you again that this thread is about SEAD/DEAD capability of PAF. I am not interested to discuss SU30MKI coming in with SEAD/DEAD config and it can be discussed in some Indian Forces section.


----------



## Falcon26

zebra7 said:


> Those comments reminds me of a story of an Ostrich which puts its head inside the Sand and predict she is safe in a storm. But BTW fantasy for Moral Boast.
> 
> On topic, and some FUNNY PART There have been some discussion of MAR-1 and LD-10 anti-radiation missile, but funny part is did any member here questioned whether MAR-1 is A2A Missile or LD-10 is a A2G anti-radiation Missile.
> 
> MAR-1 is an anti radiation missile, which is meant to attack the illuminating Ground Radar.
> LD-10 is a SD-10 Derivative with anti radiation Seeker to attack the fighter planes which is guided toward the illuminating on board radar of the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice Points, but I would like to add some more
> 
> 1. In Simple words, the ARM missile fly toward the illuminating source, aka Radar, but since technology is changing, so do the Radars, which is now becoming LPI with low probability of detection, with AESA Seaker, the ARM missile Seaker should be able to pick the Frequency of the Radar, on which the missile will ride.
> 
> 2. As far as S-400 air defence system is concerned, actually its very robust system, and I don't think it have any threat from the ARM missile such as MAR-1, owing due to range factor, which the carrier plane won't be able to come that much close to it to deliver. Also the S-400 System have a very strong layer of protection for itself and could shoot the ARM missile itself before it do any harm.
> 
> 3. During the War time, the Radars are mostly kept in Silent mode, and are illuminating for just a couple of seconds, before going silent again.
> 
> 4. Counter measures for the ARM missile are not Jammers, rather its the Deception which is Aerial illuminating deception decoy such as Aerial MK-2 decoy, which Su-30MKI is gonna getting with the Super Sukhoi upgrades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume Raa'd has been declared by Pakistan as the Strategic Weapon, which means it is not going to use in the conventional attack, because all its attack, will be considered as the Nuclear attack whenever it is detected via flight profile.
> 
> And what makes you think, that this subsonic missile could not be blown in the air with its Pantysr system.
> 
> And again FUNNY part is that the Strategic Missile like Raa'd is going to be used for against S-400 system, which is highly mobile. Does Raa'd is going to feed Pakistani control room all live pictures, and detection via data link back, and then the PAF or PA engineers are gonna feed instructions back, to change its course or the target, or the Raa'd has its own brain and will take few rounds of the area, before detecting the target, and then attack the S-400 system, something like attacking UAV like Heron. LOLZ



Actually to be fair, the Babur & Ra'ad can be used in conventional terms and can strike Indian ground radars. The Americans have been masters of using similar subsonic cruise missiles to take out mostly Russian air defense systems in Iraq. Also to be clear, my post wasn't in regards to the Russian 300/S-400 systems but against India's fielding of robust Israeli and western ecm & jamming technology. I don't have much faith in these Russian systems which have repeatedly proven to be duds in war. 

Also for detecting, I think the Erieye can detect ground radars & air defense systems. No?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## zebra7

Falcon26 said:


> Actually to be fair, the Babur & Ra'ad can be used in conventional terms and can strike Indian ground radars. The Americans have been masters of using similar subsonic cruise missiles to take out mostly Russian air defense systems in Iraq. Also to be clear, my post wasn't in regards to the Russian 300/S-400 systems but against India's fielding of robust Israeli and western ecm & jamming technology. I don't have much faith in these Russian systems which have repeatedly proven to be duds in war.
> 
> Also for detecting, I think the Erieye can detect ground radars & air defense systems. No?



May be you are right, but my point is if a missile is declared as a strategic, aka meant for the Nuclear Strike, then any detection in the Radar, by looking at its flight tragectory, radiation or characteristic -- the way the type of missile are detected positively, will lead to the Nuclear retaliation count down started, which is my assumption. Yes this could be debatable, may be some senior poster would like to comment on it.

@PARIKRAMA @Horus @waz @Abingdonboy @hellfire @MilSpec @Nilgiri

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notorious_eagle

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> No HQ-9 system is in service (yet).



It's an open secret now, in fact leaked on this very website. PAF deployed HQ-9 Batteries on its forward locations Post Mumbai Attacks. To be specific, the batteries are called FT-2000.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Blue Marlin

zebra7 said:


> Dear Marlin, its not the ARM missile what matters, rather the precise detection of the Radar, Airdefence that matters. For example, if you want to deliver the ARM missile on the Ground SAM system, then you can't depend on the RWR warning system to give you the coordinates, because it will only gave you the warning, type, and the direction, rather a HADF Pod, which will give the precise coordinates, which will be feed and programmed to the on board ARM missile before launching. In case of IAF, we have SIVA HADF pod, which could do the Job, so you should ask the Pakistani members how are you gonna detect the Radar, and its position.
> 
> Second, when we talk about the SEAD and the DEAD operation, now the IAF are going to get a good capability with Super Sukhoi with SEAD aka Kriniti Jammer, Aerial Decoy MK-2, Siva HADF, 6 KH-31PD ARM, and Jaguar/Rafale F3R for DEAD operation. For DEAD operation, Super Sukhoi armed with 6 Brahmos-NG per aircraft, gives hell lot of capability. Did you realized, why IAF send its Jaguars and MKI to the Nevada for the exercise in USA, so that to learn, and develop new tactics. Did you realized why IAF goes for the sucidal UAV Herons from Israel for the ARM attack on the Radar installation for the SEAD operation. Do you realized, why India is investing in K-100 Navator long range radar to target the AWAACS to make them blind. In short, to cripple our western enemy airdefence and airsuperiority within 72 hours.


i cant imagine precision being of concern once the radar its close enoughthen its basically the job it do the deed and finish it.

i cant imagine the mki's carrying 6 brahmos missiles at one time even though it can.
thr Kriniti Jammer you mentioned is rather old. the kh-31 and the a-27 there are both old. the onlything interesting is the k-100 
the iai heron is not a sucide drone. i think you meant the iai herop
do note you wont be able to "cripple" you neighbours airdefences in 72 hours. from a range of 400km the target can easily move to sefety well before the k100 comes in. thats one of the down side to haveing a long range missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

notorious_eagle said:


> It's an open secret now, in fact leaked on this very website. PAF deployed HQ-9 Batteries on its forward locations Post Mumbai Attacks. To be specific, the batteries are called FT-2000.


Glad to know its concrete.

*In October 2003, it was reported that China had closed a deal with its neighbor, Pakistan, to supply the latter with an unspecified number of FT-2000 missiles to counter Indias early warning capabilities. The China-Pakistan deal followed Indias own arrangement with Israel and Russia to install three Israeli Phalcon AWACS on Ilyushin Il-76 freighter aircraft, thus giving it an airborne early warning system. According to various news sources, shortly after India announced its acquisition of the Phalcon radars, Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat, the head of Pakistans air force, visited China and conveyed Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharrafs wish to purchase an unspecified number of FT-2000s.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## zebra7

Blue Marlin said:


> i cant imagine precision being of concern once the radar its close enoughthen its basically the job it do the deed and finish it.
> 
> i cant imagine the mki's carrying 6 brahmos missiles at one time even though it can.
> thr Kriniti Jammer you mentioned is rather old. the kh-31 and the a-27 there are both old. the onlything interesting is the k-100
> the iai heron is not a sucide drone. i think you meant the iai herop
> do note you wont be able to "cripple" you neighbours airdefences in 72 hours. from a range of 400km the target can easily move to sefety well before the k100 comes in. thats one of the down side to haveing a long range missile.



Its the Brahmos-NG which is smaller, lighter, but with the same range of 300 km, and 6 because of the strengthening of the airframe of the MKI.

Kriniti Jammer too gets upgradation, because upgradation keeps on going, and so do the old KH-31 like the Su-27 which is the base class of the SU-30 MKI/SM/Su-35, and you can't call them old duds. So when I say KH-31 its KH-31 PD with new seeker, also with the PAK-FA development, the new generation of the ARM missile based on KH-31 is been developed.

You are right HEROP and it could lottoire over a terrain before it lands on the Radar installation.

K-100 Won't be necessary fire, even acquiring them makes the PAF AEW platform vunerable, why ?? If carried by MKI, the range of the MKI would allow to go round the sea and target them from different angle. And those Awaacs platform have few bases, and the moment the clash would errupt, those would be the primrary target of the ground Brahmos-1, and without bases the Awaacs would be just the sitting ducks. Right Dude.


----------



## Mrc

I think every one needs to keep in mind the modern era of drones and swarms of drones will force radars to be active making tbem vulnerable to ARM strikes ....

I can foresee a missile like LD 10 can be mounted on a drone itself making it a very effective kill machine


----------



## Blue Marlin

zebra7 said:


> Its the Brahmos-NG which is smaller, lighter, but with the same range of 300 km, and 6 because of the strengthening of the airframe of the MKI.
> 
> Kriniti Jammer too gets upgradation, because upgradation keeps on going, and so do the old KH-31 like the Su-27 which is the base class of the SU-30 MKI/SM/Su-35, and you can't call them old duds. So when I say KH-31 its KH-31 PD with new seeker, also with the PAK-FA development, the new generation of the ARM missile based on KH-31 is been developed.
> 
> You are right HEROP and it could lottoire over a terrain before it lands on the Radar installation.
> 
> K-100 Won't be necessary fire, even acquiring them makes the PAF AEW platform vunerable, why ?? If carried by MKI, the range of the MKI would allow to go round the sea and target them from different angle. And those Awaacs platform have few bases, and the moment the clash would errupt, those would be the primrary target of the ground Brahmos-1, and without bases the Awaacs would be just the sitting ducks. Right Dude.


yes i was refering to the brahmos-ng, 6 is to much.
any source to confirm india is actually upgrading the pods and the missiles in question?

do you think awacs are only looking over india and not behind their backs?..........common sense there. awacs are not limited by the bases. and every aircraft from both sides are sitting ducks due to the point in time they need refueling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

zebra7 said:


> May be you are right, but my point is if a missile is declared as a strategic, aka meant for the Nuclear Strike, then any detection in the Radar, by looking at its flight tragectory, radiation or characteristic -- the way the type of missile are detected positively, will lead to the Nuclear retaliation count down started, which is my assumption. Yes this could be debatable, may be some senior poster would like to comment on it.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @Horus @waz @Abingdonboy @hellfire @MilSpec @Nilgiri


No No.
Firstly, Babur can be deployed for both strategic & conventional role.
In fact there are two version of it, one which is well known is nuclear capable and other is for specific conventional role. It is meant to penetrate in Indian ballistic defense systems as well as air defense in order to render them use less against of ballistic missiles or air crafts.
This missile was particularly developed by keeping it's usage as SEAD asset.....
And yes, it can house conventional war head as well as anti radar seeker.

As far as point of nuclear retaliation by observing "possible nuclear capable missile approach" is concerned, well that is very different thing. Cruise missiles have varying ballistic paths and remote trajectories. By judging trajectory, flight path, possible target it's pretty easy to assume that what type of warhead missile is carrying . 
And no one neither respond aggressively by "suspecting" a nuclear capable missile launch nor the enemy fires a lone less leathel sub sonic cruise missile to start a nuclear war 



Sarge said:


> Glad to know its concrete.
> 
> *In October 2003, it was reported that China had closed a deal with its neighbor, Pakistan, to supply the latter with an unspecified number of FT-2000 missiles to counter Indias early warning capabilities. The China-Pakistan deal followed Indias own arrangement with Israel and Russia to install three Israeli Phalcon AWACS on Ilyushin Il-76 freighter aircraft, thus giving it an airborne early warning system. According to various news sources, shortly after India announced its acquisition of the Phalcon radars, Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat, the head of Pakistans air force, visited China and conveyed Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharrafs wish to purchase an unspecified number of FT-2000s.*


Interesting .......
But it's still a rumor ......
Damn, they neither admit it nor deny it.
I just did a failed attempt to get information about Zarb missile, and I was just denied

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Basel

zebra7 said:


> In case of what India have, did you forgot the development of *NGARM Missile* (Range 100-125 km) been developed by the DRDO.
> 
> From Russia
> 
> *KH 31 PD* -- A2G
> 
> *Novatar KS–172* ARM Missile -- Range 300 KM and 400 KM (Anti Awaac) -- Under Development.
> 
> *R-27EP* _AA-10 Alamo-F_, a longer range passive anti-radiation missile with a range of up to 70 nm (110 km)
> 
> Future and Indian Interest
> 
> *AGM-88 HARM *This is U.S missiles, but Indian Airforce seems to be interesting in it. May be it could be attached with the Rafale deal, with french-U.S, or Indo-US deal have to be made.
> 
> *KH-58USHKE *
> 
> http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/
> 
> 
> 
> Are you MTCR Signatory ??



It doesn't matter Pakistan and China knows how work it out. Silent ToT will do the job


----------



## Bratva

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _LD-10 ARM_
> 
> SIPRI reports that Pakistan has received 50 (out of 100 ordered) LD-10 anti-radiation missiles from China in 2014 and 2015. These missiles were ordered in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: SIPRI_



Take everything SIPRI says with a Big grain of Salt. Their sources of collecting data is hugely obscure and unverified. Lets analyze logically and factually. Have we seen JF-17 flying with LD-10 in china ? Because we know Most of the missiles it is integrated with were at one time photographed in china hanging with that said missile. This news is just a smoking gun. Nothing else.



notorious_eagle said:


> It's an open secret now, in fact leaked on this very website. PAF deployed HQ-9 Batteries on its forward locations Post Mumbai Attacks. To be specific, the batteries are called FT-2000.



Most probably a leased system and returned back to China after a specific time frame.



Tipu7 said:


> No No.
> Firstly, Babur can be deployed for both strategic & conventional role.
> In fact there are two version of it, one which is well known is nuclear capable and other is for specific conventional role. It is meant to penetrate in Indian ballistic defense systems as well as air defense in order to render them use less against of ballistic missiles or air crafts.
> This missile was particularly developed by keeping it's usage as SEAD asset.....
> And yes, it can house conventional war head as well as anti radar seeker.
> 
> As far as point of nuclear retaliation by observing "possible nuclear capable missile approach" is concerned, well that is very different thing. Cruise missiles have varying ballistic paths and remote trajectories. By judging trajectory, flight path, possible target it's pretty easy to assume that what type of warhead missile is carrying .
> And no one neither respond aggressively by "suspecting" a nuclear capable missile launch nor the enemy fires a lone less leathel sub sonic cruise missile to start a nuclear war
> 
> 
> Interesting .......
> But it's still a rumor ......
> Damn, they neither admit it nor deny it.
> I just did a failed attempt to get information about Zarb missile, and I was just denied



Unless they perfect the design of ZARB missile after couple of failures. Then they will leak you the news about this missile.


----------



## war&peace

zebra7 said:


> Those comments reminds me of a story of an Ostrich which puts its head inside the Sand and predict she is safe in a storm. But BTW fantasy for Moral Boast.
> 
> On topic, and some FUNNY PART There have been some discussion of MAR-1 and LD-10 anti-radiation missile, but funny part is did any member here questioned whether MAR-1 is A2A Missile or LD-10 is a A2G anti-radiation Missile.
> 
> MAR-1 is an anti radiation missile, which is meant to attack the illuminating Ground Radar.
> *LD-10 is a SD-10 Derivative with anti radiation Seeker to attack the fighter planes which is guided toward the illuminating on board radar of the plane.*


LD-10 is an A2G ARM. Try to update yourself before making funny comments otherwise you will end up embarrassed here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Falcon26

zebra7 said:


> May be you are right, but my point is if a missile is declared as a strategic, aka meant for the Nuclear Strike, then any detection in the Radar, by looking at its flight tragectory, radiation or characteristic -- the way the type of missile are detected positively, will lead to the Nuclear retaliation count down started, which is my assumption. Yes this could be debatable, may be some senior poster would like to comment on it.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @Horus @waz @Abingdonboy @hellfire @MilSpec @Nilgiri



Thanks for raising this point. I am amazed by this repeated Indian claim of massive nuclear retaliation. According to Indians, India is an economic power house that is rapidly advancing economically while Pakistan is a failed state. In the event of a nuclear holocaust, who has more to lose? Pakistan or India?

In my view, the answer to this question makes it abundantly clear why a cold start or whatever start Indians come up with is imprudent and not thought through. It's foolhardy proposition to think that wars are fought according to your ideal terms.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

zebra7 said:


> May be you are right, but my point is if a missile is declared as a strategic, aka meant for the Nuclear Strike, then any detection in the Radar, by looking at its flight tragectory, radiation or characteristic -- the way the type of missile are detected positively, will lead to the Nuclear retaliation count down started, which is my assumption. Yes this could be debatable, may be some senior poster would like to comment on it.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @Horus @waz @Abingdonboy @hellfire @MilSpec @Nilgiri



With 24/7 surveillance by Indian AWACS with optimized algorithms to pick out low flying and even low RCS bogies (which India can test extensively during peacetime i.e right now...esp with Israeli cooperation)....India has a useful counter against the threat of long distance based strikes that seek to use cruise missiles (on top of what already is being developed/acquired for ballistic platforms). These algorithms (on top of using several real time advanced noise reduction filters) will use many of the components you are mentioning here.

A missile launched by pakistan will have a large defensive matrix and identification process in the long run to face with in India. India for now has a broad spectrum definition of what constitutes grounds for full retaliation....but I see this changing with time as India brings more technology and counters under its umbrella (though it may not do so officially). Its similar to how I believe NFU policy by India may also be more for peacetime prestige....I doubt India would forego an opportunity for a first strike on Pakistan nuclear assets using nuclear assets itself should a clear and relatively clean opportunity present itself....in the interest of saving many millions of civilian lives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

Falcon26 said:


> I am not an Indian at all but thanks for your feedback.


Oh sorry that was wrong judgement on my part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thorough Pro

Why mount an LD10 on a drone and not just the seeker on a cheap one-way drone laden with explosives to lock on to them and take them out





Mrc said:


> I think every one needs to keep in mind the modern era of drones and swarms of drones will force radars to be active making tbem vulnerable to ARM strikes ....
> 
> I can foresee a missile like LD 10 can be mounted on a drone itself making it a very effective kill machine

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

Bratva said:


> Most probably a leased system and returned back to China after a specific time frame.


What is your source of info about the lease?


----------



## Danish saleem

from which platform we will fire these missile?


----------



## Mrc

Thorough Pro said:


> Why mount an LD10 on a drone and not just the seeker on a cheap one-way drone laden with explosives to lock on to them and take them out



Excellent idea...a small drone rcently challenged robust israeli air defence and returned intact despit 3 missiles being fired at it including one patriot pac 2

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

notorious_eagle said:


> It's an open secret now, in fact leaked on this very website. PAF deployed HQ-9 Batteries on its forward locations Post Mumbai Attacks. To be specific, the batteries are called FT-2000.


no it is still just rumors nothing else, no official confirmation, even not a single picture


----------



## Mrc

Nilgiri said:


> With 24/7 surveillance by Indian AWACS with optimized algorithms to pick out low flying and even low RCS bogies (which India can test extensively during peacetime i.e right now...esp with Israeli cooperation)....India has a useful counter against the threat of long distance based strikes that seek to use cruise missiles (on top of what already is being developed/acquired for ballistic platforms). These algorithms (on top of using several real time advanced noise reduction filters) will use many of the components you are mentioning here.
> 
> A missile launched by pakistan will have a large defensive matrix and identification process in the long run to face with in India. India for now has a broad spectrum definition of what constitutes grounds for full retaliation....but I see this changing with time as India brings more technology and counters under its umbrella (though it may not do so officially). Its similar to how I believe NFU policy by India may also be more for peacetime prestige....I doubt India would forego an opportunity for a first strike on Pakistan nuclear assets using nuclear assets itself should a clear and relatively clean opportunity present itself....in the interest of saving many millions of civilian lives.




Usually in this forum we try to stick to reality ...

For mental and physical satisfaction using dreams there are some other excellent forums out there...

May i suggest bharat rakshak

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bratva

war&peace said:


> What is your source of info about the lease?



As soon as SAM becomes online, Adversary knows about the existance of system and can capture its radiation/signature and store it in its electronic library so every EW/ESM out there know where the particular system is right now.So what is the point of hiding a system from own public if Enemies know about the system ? After the system went online, Not a single mention of HQ-9 in press or a picture released of the system. Which only means, HQ-9 was a leased system and was returned back to China. or the system never existed and it is more like a boogeyman story

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

Mrc said:


> Usually in this forum we try to stick to reality ...
> 
> For mental and physical satisfaction using dreams there are some other excellent forums out there...
> 
> May i suggest bharat rakshak



Why don't you actually start a qualitative technical interaction with me instead of submitting so meekly?

I am interested to see if any Pakistani member here can discuss any of these issues instead of dismissing them (based mostly on their inability to understand whats being talked about)?

@Sarge and others I have great respect for because they can engage in strong constructive, clear and rationale arguments....and not just dismiss something without even illustrating what they disagree with/challenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mrc

Nilgiri said:


> Why don't you actually start a qualitative technical interaction with me instead of submitting so meekly?
> 
> I am interested to see if any Pakistani member here can discuss any of these issues instead of dismissing them (based mostly on their inability to understand whats being talked about)?
> 
> @Sarge and others I have great respect for because they can engage in strong constructive, clear and rationale arguments....and not just dismiss something without even illustrating what they disagree with/challenge.





Lets start with very first line of your rant than shall we...
What 24/7 awacs coverage?...u only have 3 functional awacs for country your size as opposed to 7 for country size of pakistan....

I strongly suggest bharat rakshak...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

Mrc said:


> Lets start with very first line of your rant than shall we...
> What 24/7 awacs coverage?...u only have 3 functional awacs for country your size as opposed to 7 for country size of pakistan....
> 
> I strongly suggest bharat rakshak...



I am talking when India has a full potent AWACS force in the mid term from now. Or are you only discussing in the short time frame from now till then?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mrc

Nilgiri said:


> I am talking when India has a full potent AWACS force in the mid term from now. Or are you only discussing in the short time frame from now till then?




and pakistan will stand at a still for mid term from now? boss seriously .. bharat.......

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

Mrc said:


> and pakistan will stand at a still for mid term from now? boss seriously .. bharat.......



Your GDP growth is not a very promising trend for the long term. That will ultimately dictate what capabilities each country can muster against the other.

I did some calculations using the service altitude of the phalcons. Looks like their maximum range coverage would be in the ballpark of almost 400 kilometres. 3 of them actually cover quite a lot of airspace between them....so this system is probably already being put into place for testing of lo-size+lo RCS detection.

DRDO AWACS also has similar service ceiling, but lower peak output probably means their actual optimized coverage circles would be a certain fraction of whatever it is for the phalcons I believe (which we are acquiring 2 more of).

@Water Car Engineer @Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA what do you guys think?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mrc

Nilgiri said:


> Your GDP growth is not a very promising trend for the long term. That will ultimately dictate what capabilities each country can muster against the other.
> 
> I did some calculations using the service altitude of the phalcons. Looks like their maximum range coverage would be in the ballpark of almost 400 kilometres. 3 of them actually cover quite a lot of airspace between them....so this system is probably already being put into place for testing of lo-size+lo RCS detection.
> 
> DRDO AWACS also has similar service ceiling, but lower peak output probably means their actual optimized coverage circles would be a certain fraction of whatever it is for the phalcons I believe (which we are acquiring 2 more of).
> 
> @Water Car Engineer @Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA what do you guys think?




well i tell you what i think ... to much bollywood bad for health....

if GDP growth was only measure of success in war.... world's first superpower (roman empire) would still be a superpower today....

sionara

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Falcon26

Mrc said:


> Excellent idea...a small drone rcently challenged robust israeli air defence and returned intact despit 3 missiles being fired at it including one patriot pac 2



Do you have a link? Armed drones against enemy air defense present one of the most cost effective solutions against s-300/s-400 type systems


----------



## Nilgiri

Mrc said:


> well i tell you what i think ... to much bollywood bad for health....
> 
> if GDP growth was only measure of success in war.... world's first superpower (roman empire) would still be a superpower today....
> 
> sionara



And you go back to it...lol. Can't continue the technical part of it can you? Too bad.

I will wait for someone who can then.


----------



## notorious_eagle

Bratva said:


> As soon as SAM becomes online, Adversary knows about the existance of system and can capture its radiation/signature and store it in its electronic library so every EW/ESM out there know where the particular system is right now.So what is the point of hiding a system from own public if Enemies know about the system ? After the system went online, Not a single mention of HQ-9 in press or a picture released of the system. *Which only means, HQ-9 was a leased system and was returned back to China. or the system never existed and it is more like a boogeyman story*



Certainly not a boogeyman, as it was deployed near the Lahore Sector Post Mumbai Attacks. It wouldn't make sense returning a system such as the HQ-9 which is the ideal system PAF needs to counter IAF's High Altitude Fast Movers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bratva

notorious_eagle said:


> Certainly not a boogeyman, as it was deployed near the Lahore Sector Post Mumbai Attacks. It wouldn't make sense returning a system such as the HQ-9 which is the ideal system PAF needs to counter IAF's High Altitude Fast Movers.



Waste of resources if they tried to deploy HQ-9 in forward sector without a CIWS to destroy such kind of counter attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Harpy


----------



## SQ8

notorious_eagle said:


> Certainly not a boogeyman, as it was deployed near the Lahore Sector Post Mumbai Attacks. It wouldn't make sense returning a system such as the HQ-9 which is the ideal system PAF needs to counter IAF's High Altitude Fast Movers.


May not be a boogeyman but also not upto what the PAF wants. Stop gaps were made based on emergency situations but as such the PAF has different ideas for Long range systems(or rather the IADS that is being built up as a cross service system).



Bratva said:


> Waste of resources if they tried to deploy HQ-9 in forward sector without a CIWS to destroy such kind of counter attacks
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Harpy


There is a large gap between what everyone has in their inventory and what they have ready to go day 1. The Harpy is a very temperamental system to deploy and the IAF has focused on KH-31s instead.


----------



## Ultima Thule

notorious_eagle said:


> Certainly not a boogeyman, as it was deployed near the Lahore Sector Post Mumbai Attacks. It wouldn't make sense returning a system such as the HQ-9 which is the ideal system PAF needs to counter IAF's High Altitude Fast Movers.


how do you so confident that we have it? and how do you know location that its deployed in the Lahore sector, its all just assumptions, wishful thinking and rumors, not a single valid and concrete evidences


----------



## Sine Nomine

Oscar said:


> May not be a boogeyman but also not upto what the PAF wants.


What PAF wants sir? HQ 9 has AESA Radar with missile capable of reaching 200km range,what else they want?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zebra7

Tipu7 said:


> No No.
> Firstly, Babur can be deployed for both strategic & conventional role.
> In fact there are two version of it, one which is well known is nuclear capable and other is for specific conventional role. It is meant to penetrate in Indian ballistic defense systems as well as air defense in order to render them use less against of ballistic missiles or air crafts.
> This missile was particularly developed by keeping it's usage as SEAD asset.....
> And yes, it can house conventional war head as well as anti radar seeker.
> 
> As far as point of nuclear retaliation by observing "possible nuclear capable missile approach" is concerned, well that is very different thing. Cruise missiles have varying ballistic paths and remote trajectories. By judging trajectory, flight path, possible target it's pretty easy to assume that what type of warhead missile is carrying .
> And no one neither respond aggressively by "suspecting" a nuclear capable missile launch nor the enemy fires a lone less leathel sub sonic cruise missile to start a nuclear war



Do you want to say that the flight tragectory of the Nuclear and conventional warhead would be different. Thats new to me, could you ellaborate it further.



قناص said:


> What PAF wants sir? HQ 9 has AESA Radar with missile capable of reaching 200km range,what else they want?



Could you provide me the link, because as far as I know HQ-9 has PESA radar.


----------



## Tipu7

zebra7 said:


> Do you want to say that the flight tragectory of the Nuclear and conventional warhead would be different. Thats new to me, could you ellaborate it further.


Of course it will be.
It depends on targets where it is located and how sensitive it is.
In case of nuclear strike you follow a more secure path, avoiding detection (ECM, gamma Radiation signature) hence interception, flight path almost entirely exist in hostile territory. Targets are big, sensitive and non singular.
In case of conventional strike you can have more flexibility in flight path, like you can use air space of even friendly country to strike your enemy from location which is least defended. Targets are usually military assets located at ranges where it's extremely risky for your air force to penetrate. Targets are usually singular.
Flight paths & trajectories can give you educated guess about missile type, but not solid information.



zebra7 said:


> Could you provide me the link, because as far as I know HQ-9 has PESA radar.


www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-061209-1.html
Will it work?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hell hound

Oscar said:


> May not be a boogeyman but also not upto what the PAF wants. Stop gaps were made based on emergency situations but as such the PAF has different ideas for Long range systems(or rather the IADS that is being built up as a cross service system).


so bro what do you think about hq 16 and paf requirement.why paf loves semi active missiles for its SAMS when world is moving toward aesa equipped missile.not saying go get the most expensive asea equipped missile but least we could do is go for active missiles which are less susceptible to jamming then semi active one.
kickbacks or desperation?


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

قناص said:


> I was thinking on same line, @Rashid Mahmood sir looking forward for your comments,armament is being purchased before platform why,either deal was made public late or something else.



The sub deal is finalised and construction mobilisation has commenced at the Shipyard. 
It takes a long time to establish the setup. Weapons are also being acquired as part of the package deal.
Such details are never made public.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Hell hound

Rashid Mahmood said:


> The sub deal is finalised and construction mobilisation has commenced at the Shipyard.
> It takes a long time to establish the setup. Weapons are also being acquired as part of the package deal.
> Such details are never made public.


so what you mean to say we are not getting these 60s era yu 3 and yu 4 for our modern subs and this report is hoax 
thank god


----------



## Thorough Pro

Come down from your high mountain of shit, your awacs and satellites can't fucking trace a single fallen plane but you can fucking see every boner in Pakistan.




Nilgiri said:


> With 24/7 surveillance by Indian AWACS with optimized algorithms to pick out low flying and even low RCS bogies (which India can test extensively during peacetime i.e right now...esp with Israeli cooperation)....India has a useful counter against the threat of long distance based strikes that seek to use cruise missiles (on top of what already is being developed/acquired for ballistic platforms). These algorithms (on top of using several real time advanced noise reduction filters) will use many of the components you are mentioning here.
> 
> A missile launched by pakistan will have a large defensive matrix and identification process in the long run to face with in India. India for now has a broad spectrum definition of what constitutes grounds for full retaliation....but I see this changing with time as India brings more technology and counters under its umbrella (though it may not do so officially). Its similar to how I believe NFU policy by India may also be more for peacetime prestige....I doubt India would forego an opportunity for a first strike on Pakistan nuclear assets using nuclear assets itself should a clear and relatively clean opportunity present itself....in the interest of saving many millions of civilian lives.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

Thorough Pro said:


> Come down from your high mountain of shit, your awacs and satellites can't fucking trace a single fallen plane but you can fucking see every boner in Pakistan.



Lol what an idiot. 

Has no idea what and how the E.M spectrum works like.

Like they used AWACS for the MH370 search.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thorough Pro

yeah, when you breath so much methane everything looks stupid..........a retard indian 




Nilgiri said:


> Lol what an idiot.
> 
> Has no idea what and how the E.M spectrum works like.
> 
> Like they used AWACS for the MH370 search.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

Thorough Pro said:


> yeah, when you breath so much methane everything looks stupid..........a retard indian



Do you even understand how a radar works?...and why it wouldn't be able to detect a crashed aircraft with the current aperture resolution levels we have today?

Like I said, you have no knowledge of EM science, its doubtful you even know what EM stands for.

In the massive search for MH370, not one AWACS aircraft was used. Why is that?


----------



## Sine Nomine

Rashid Mahmood said:


> The sub deal is finalised and construction mobilisation has commenced at the Shipyard.
> It takes a long time to establish the setup.


But as you know that sir,chinese shipyard officals said that KARACHI SHIP YARD requires little upgrade because it has been already in sub building business,does that means that setup time would be less as compared to new facility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## virgosa2

Awesome


----------



## WaLeEdK2

Anti-radiation missiles can be used to take out SAM sites. It's a great addition to the AF.


----------



## Sine Nomine

zebra7 said:


> Could you provide me the link, because as far as I know HQ-9 has PESA radar.


Sure,

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-061209-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-HQ-9-12-Battery-Radars.html


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

قناص said:


> But as you know that sir,chinese shipyard officals said that KARACHI SHIP YARD requires little upgrade because it has been already in sub building business,does that means that setup time would be less as compared to new facility.



Obviously it will be less, but still it will take some time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

Rashid Mahmood said:


> Obviously it will be less, but still it will take some time.


Sir,any idea how many systems we will bulit and how much will be coming in knockdown form.


----------



## Rashid Mahmood

قناص said:


> Sir,any idea how many systems we will bulit and how much will be coming in knockdown form.



4 are expected to be built here.(assembled).


----------



## Sine Nomine

Rashid Mahmood said:


> 4 are expected to be built here.(assembled).


Sir,what's new in that we already assembled Agostas,so we will be building a hull and then placing supplied systems in it,what expertise we will gain from it.


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> hows it going arslan? long time no see.
> i read an article where the jf-17 was featured in an airshow and the pakistani being interviewed said the range of the cm-102 can be extended 50% or even beyond.
> so its highly likely this wil be used for long distance sead missions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could be air based too.....it could engage awacs



Hi,
Just been a bit busy with family, there was a death in family so had to take some time off. 

Yeah i read that one piece about Cm102 somewhere as well. Maybe it will be CM102 along side MAR-1 that will be PAF's main SEAD weapon but the thing is this is not stopping PAF and PAC from integrating other options as well. This clearly is being done with exports in mind. When it comes to options for export customers, it is always the more the merrier you know  I hope that the trend will continue with more WVR, BVRAAM, anti-Radiation, stand-ff ground attack missiles and stuff.



raazh said:


> Last three items are interesting. All for (S20) Type 041 subs including Anti Ship missile. The order was in 2014 then I think it is safe to assume that the deal for these subs was signed either in 2014 or before 2014.


We have started preliminary works at the shipyard as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Arsalan said:


> Hi,
> Just been a bit busy with family, there was a death in family so had to take some time off.
> 
> Yeah i read that one piece about Cm102 somewhere as well. Maybe it will be CM102 along side MAR-1 that will be PAF's main SEAD weapon but the thing is this is not stopping PAF and PAC from integrating other options as well. This clearly is being done with exports in mind. When it comes to options for export customers, it is always the more the merrier you know  I hope that the trend will continue with more WVR, BVRAAM, anti-Radiation, stand-ff ground attack missiles and stuff.


sorry to hear that pal, hope all is well.

well yes the chinese has a huge treasure trove of kit that can go on the jet. and the end of the day if the cliet wants it they get it. and chinese have made their kit so that its as easy and as cheap as possible. not to mention as fast as possible. time is money. since the mar-1 is a specailist missiles i would forsee a larger number os cm-102's. i kinda doubt the ld-10 come to think of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> sorry to hear that pal, hope all is well.
> 
> well yes the chinese has a huge treasure trove of kit that can go on the jet. and the end of the day if the cliet wants it they get it. and chinese have made their kit so that its as easy and as cheap as possible. not to mention as fast as possible. time is money. since the mar-1 is a specailist missiles i would forsee a larger number os cm-102's. i kinda doubt the ld-10 come to think of it.


Thanks for your kind words!

You are right about the huge number of Chinese options but it seems it wont end at that. PAF might well look towards non-Chinese options as well for export market. South Africans, Italians and Brazil are some potential suppliers. Also i agree with you on LD-10 and it looks more like an export option rather than a PAF procurement.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

Arsalan said:


> Thanks for your kid words!
> 
> You are right about the huge number of Chinese options but it seems it wont end at that. PAF might well look towards non-Chinese options as well for export market. South Africans, Italians and Brazil are some potential suppliers. Also i agree with you on LD-10 and it looks more like an export option rather than a PAF procurement.


south africa (denel) has the darter series with the a darter being a very interesting choice. and their mid size vls sams

brazil (mectron) has the maa-1a, mar-1 (pakistan has both) maa-1b which you may have. the italians have tha aspide. 

which italy has and has a decent sized stake in mbda. but if you want kit from mbda you go through the uk as we have the largest share per country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> south africa (denel) has the darter series with the a darter being a very interesting choice. and their mid size vls sams
> 
> brazil (mectron) has the maa-1a, mar-1 (pakistan has both) maa-1b which you may have. the italians have tha aspide.
> 
> which italy has and has a decent sized stake in mbda. but if you want kit from mbda you go through the uk as we have the largest share per country.


I do not see going through UK being a problem either. Pakistan and England do enjoy good decent relations.


----------



## Yasir khan Afridi

good news !!


----------



## Blue Marlin

Arsalan said:


> I do not see going through UK being a problem either. Pakistan and England do enjoy good decent relations.


indeed same applies to the italians.
so if you want.......lets say the meteor missile chances of it being approved is very high. the french may flip but who cares. heck you can use the asraam as opposed the a-darter it has a greater range near similar to the mica.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Blue Marlin said:


> indeed same applies to the italians.
> so if you want.......lets say the meteor missile chances of it being approved is very high. the french may flip but who cares. heck you can use the asraam as opposed the a-darter it has a greater range near similar to the mica.


Frankly speaking, i am not so sure if PAF is pursuing these options for itself. However the implications of being able to offer a Meteor with JF17 to the export customer are HUGE!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## notorious_eagle

Bratva said:


> Waste of resources if they tried to deploy HQ-9 in forward sector without a CIWS to destroy such kind of counter attacks
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Harpy





Oscar said:


> May not be a boogeyman but also not upto what the PAF wants. Stop gaps were made based on emergency situations but as such the PAF has different ideas for Long range systems(or rather the IADS that is being built up as a cross service system).
> 
> There is a large gap between what everyone has in their inventory and what they have ready to go day 1. The Harpy is a very temperamental system to deploy and the IAF has focused on KH-31s instead.



Fair Enough

I always assumed we would end up keeping these batteries. After all, we ended up keeping the C602's and C803's which were shipped on an emergency basis to Pakistan.


----------



## Mrc

notorious_eagle said:


> Fair Enough
> 
> I always assumed we would end up keeping these batteries. After all, we ended up keeping the C602's and C803's which were shipped on an emergency basis to Pakistan.




As per recent public ststement from pm office they are about to sign a contract for these provided finances are sorted out

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

You have had your fun with the other member 

now back to business  haha 



Nilgiri said:


> With 24/7 surveillance by Indian AWACS with optimized algorithms to pick out low flying and even low RCS bogies (which India can test extensively during peacetime i.e right now...esp with Israeli cooperation)....India has a useful counter against the threat of long distance based strikes that seek to use cruise missiles (on top of what already is being developed/acquired for ballistic platforms). These algorithms (on top of using several real time advanced noise reduction filters) will use many of the components you are mentioning here.
> 
> A missile launched by pakistan will have a large defensive matrix and identification process in the long run to face with in India. India for now has a broad spectrum definition of what constitutes grounds for full retaliation....but I see this changing with time as India brings more technology and counters under its umbrella (though it may not do so officially). Its similar to how I believe NFU policy by India may also be more for peacetime prestige....I doubt India would forego an opportunity for a first strike on Pakistan nuclear assets using nuclear assets itself should a clear and relatively clean opportunity present itself....in the interest of saving many millions of civilian lives.



what will be the long distance target for Pak C-Missile or UAV or UCAV?

where will the 400km radius AWACS be placed, a rough idea of location ? circling around or changing location/sector? will IAF AWACS direct offensive ops inside Pak by IAF fighters? Coverage on Indian-Kashmir?

Have the AWACs and IAF radar sites been integrated for communication between them?

Can IAF AWACS control A2A missiles fired by MKI?

Jamming capabilities for PAF aircrafts entering India?

important, how are you so sure that the 400km radius will pick up everything:
Is the power distribution equal in all the radiated area by AWACS radar ?
what about clutter losses?are losses more in a populated area?
How much is radiated signal of radar affected with weather?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mrc

Awacs is worst possible way to look for tree hugging cm.... looking from top all you are going to see is trees and mountains and deserts reflecting your radar back to you....certainly cannot track a low flying subsonic small cm...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

Blue Marlin said:


> indeed same applies to the italians.
> so if you want.......lets say the meteor missile chances of it being approved is very high. the french may flip but who cares. heck you can use the asraam as opposed the a-darter it has a greater range near similar to the mica.



ASRAAM could be BVR of 3rd Gen fighters allowing them better intercept capabilities although it is less maneuverable then its current competitors


----------



## Arsalan

Sarge said:


> You have had your fun with the other member
> 
> now back to business  haha
> 
> 
> 
> what will be the long distance target for Pak C-Missile or UAV or UCAV?
> 
> where will the 400km radius AWACS be placed, a rough idea of location ? circling around or changing location/sector? will IAF AWACS direct offensive ops inside Pak by IAF fighters? Coverage on Indian-Kashmir?
> 
> Have the AWACs and IAF radar sites been integrated for communication between them?
> 
> Can IAF AWACS control A2A missiles fired by MKI?
> 
> Jamming capabilities for PAF aircrafts entering India?
> 
> important, how are you so sure that the 400km radius will pick up everything:
> Is the power distribution equal in all the radiated area by AWACS radar ?
> what about clutter losses?are losses more in a populated area?
> How much is radiated signal of radar affected with weather?


add to this the ridicilious idea of using AWACS to track CM in Pak-India scenario! Even in theory all those losses in a near urban setup cannot be ignore let alone in practical use. 
A Pak India war will be an affair with no winners, the only point will be who have more to lose

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## R!CK

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> _LD-10 ARM_
> 
> SIPRI reports that Pakistan has received 50 (out of 100 ordered) LD-10 anti-radiation missiles from China in 2014 and 2015. These missiles were ordered in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: SIPRI_



Congradz guys!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007

good addition


----------



## war&peace

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.


Once you have destroyed the radar then rest is easy .


----------



## Nilgiri

Sarge said:


> what will be the long distance target for Pak C-Missile or UAV or UCAV?



Not entirely sure, but phalcon sized AWACS performing in this role will be well within Indian airspace protecting cities, strategic assets and supply chains etc... They will be afforded the maximum defense from other IAF and army aviation assets too.

I am talking of course in the future when there are at least 5 of them....and which will be ramped up to larger numbers with time.

It will be the embraer AWACS that will provide more flexible tactical coverage for Indian forward forces I would imagine....the aircraft itself being a smaller target, more maneuverable (for evasion) while still packing a real punch etc.... How those will be integrated in the system I am talking about (a look down defensive matrix) will remain to be seen since their capabilities are still being developed.



Sarge said:


> where will the 400km radius AWACS be placed, a rough idea of location ? circling around or changing location/sector? will IAF AWACS direct offensive ops inside Pak by IAF fighters? Coverage on Indian-Kashmir?



Assuming 5 AWACS with 3 in the air at any time....I would imagine something like this:






With gentle turn holding patterns for each one till they are rotated by a replacement. The smaller AWACS platforms will add on top of this as will any additional large Phalcon sized AWACS the IAF gets beyond the 5 it will be operating in the near future. I would assume it would be the smaller ones that would be changing sector given operational needs within IND or PAK airspace....but the phalcons themselves are more strategic I would imagine and must not venture into Pakistan airspace I think.

Some protection will be afforded by the northern most sentry to JnK (esp chicken neck area), but JnK does not have the level of strategic assets and population to defend as the other areas....so with 5 strategic AWACS, I do not see one being dedicated there purely. But it could potentially have a smaller one or two there depending on what type of operations the army want to conduct from there against the opponent. Maybe with time as sentry numbers are increased it will get a large strategic dedicated platform too....but right now I don't think so.



Sarge said:


> Have the AWACs and IAF radar sites been integrated for communication between them?



I believe so.



Sarge said:


> Can IAF AWACS control A2A missiles fired by MKI?



Yes this was tested, demonstrated and confirmed earlier.



Sarge said:


> Jamming capabilities for PAF aircrafts entering India?



Its potent capability that IAF should not underestimate. But the Phalcon AWACS has the nature of AESA going for it which is very difficult to jam given its multi-band, low amplitude spectrum....and the fact it can act as PESA at any time should the need arise. I believe the PAF doctrine would focus more on using its air assets to counter intruder AWACS (which would be more likely to be the embraer platforms) and rather target the strategic ones with AWACs killing missiles when the opportunity presents itself (with a lot of finger crossing involved).

How the situation evolves with the years to come as more technologies come online (Ga-N vs Ga-As adoption, particular module upgrades NATO does for the E-3 which I am following closely and also how HARM seekers improve) remains to be seen. It will be a cat and mouse game like anything else.



Sarge said:


> important, how are you so sure that the 400km radius will pick up everything:
> Is the power distribution equal in all the radiated area by AWACS radar ?
> what about clutter losses?are losses more in a populated area?
> How much is radiated signal of radar affected with weather?



Excellent. These were the points I expected someone to finally bring up when I quoted 400 km as the range.

Firstly its a range to horizon at maximum service ceiling. This is the maximum feasible pick up range (and you have to remember that an aircraft endurance sweet zone is not at its service ceiling....but thats another discussion for another time since we are talking maximum potential capability here).

Its effective range for ground hugging cruise missile tracking will of course be some fraction of this 400km...which is unknown and will probably remain so (it is dependent on the algorithm quality esp SNR processing channels). But I would imagine the Israelis have developed some pretty potent ones that the DRDO and others would have optimised for Indian conditions/use.

I would also imagine all clutter/noise/weather effects will be tested extensively in peace time against real low flying bogies and refine the algorithms as needed. It will definitely not be a "first time" experience for the AWAC operators during a potential conflict.



Mrc said:


> Awacs is worst possible way to look for tree hugging cm.... looking from top all you are going to see is trees and mountains and deserts reflecting your radar back to you....certainly cannot track a low flying subsonic small cm...



Actually thats a wrong assertion. You should read up more on even legacy performance of AWAC systems against cruise missiles (even in ground hugging mode). With an AESA radar, operating in tandem with other AESA radars.....it would require a very stealthy missile to stand even a chance because of ISAR effects from its velocity. I will have to dig up some papers later for you to get what I mean here.

@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @Taygibay @Vergennes @Water Car Engineer

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Mrc

Rcs of tomahawk is 0.05... its 1960s design ...most modern groud hugging missiles have rcs of 0.01 or lower....


DETECTION range for most modern awacs against 0.01 m2 target is 22 km in clean shot without ground clutter... even tomahawk cannot be tracked through ground clutter only detected

RA'Aad has stealthy design on top of size...babur is alot smaller than tomahawk...

To cover 15000 km border with 22km detection range u will need 60 awcs flying 24/7 ...but thats only detection ...u cannot track them through mountains buildingdls and trees and rogh ground even through desert for obvious reason....

Do the maths



Nilgiri said:


> Actually thats a wrong assertion. You should read up more on even legacy performance of AWAC systems against cruise missiles (even in ground hugging mode). With an AESA radar, operating in tandem with other AESA radars.....it would require a very stealthy missile to stand even a chance because of ISAR effects from its velocity. I will have to dig up some papers later for you to get what I mean here.



As above .. and please post papers tgat show CM in hugging mode can tracked....

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

Mrc said:


> As above .. and please post papers tgat show CM in hugging mode can tracked....



You need only look up the module upgrading of the E-3 sentry using such upgraded systems for PDNES and PDES scans (way back in the 80s and 90s):

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1989/1989 - 2614.PDF

There are more detailed papers on this upgrade but they are paid subscription only and subject to copyright etc so I wont post them here. You can do your own search to see whats available in google.

You can easily verify that such systems get continually upgraded as new threat sources become apparent:

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/ar...ild-power-amplifier-for-e-3-sentry-radar.html

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/e3awacs/

Suffice to say a next generation AWACS like phalcon (considered the best in the world for a reason) would have a capability far in excess of the legacy E-3 sentries to begin with.....with algorithm refinement and upgrades backed up by hard cold testing by both the Israelis and Indians...anyone without any bias can see it will be a tough ask to get past a defensive matrix composed of such look down radars.

I will post a more detailed collection of ISAR papers later. I have to track them down first.....its been a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blue Marlin

Nilgiri said:


> Not entirely sure, but phalcon sized AWACS performing in this role will be well within Indian airspace protecting cities, strategic assets and supply chains etc... They will be afforded the maximum defense from other IAF and army aviation assets too.
> 
> I am talking of course in the future when there are at least 5 of them....and which will be ramped up to larger numbers with time.
> 
> It will be the embraer AWACS that will provide more flexible tactical coverage for Indian forward forces I would imagine....the aircraft itself being a smaller target, more maneuverable (for evasion) while still packing a real punch etc.... How those will be integrated in the system I am talking about (a look down defensive matrix) will remain to be seen since their capabilities are still being developed.
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming 5 AWACS with 3 in the air at any time....I would imagine something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With gentle turn holding patterns for each one till they are rotated by a replacement. The smaller AWACS platforms will add on top of this as will any additional large Phalcon sized AWACS the IAF gets beyond the 5 it will be operating in the near future. I would assume it would be the smaller ones that would be changing sector given operational needs within IND or PAK airspace....but the phalcons themselves are more strategic I would imagine and must not venture into Pakistan airspace I think.
> 
> Some protection will be afforded by the northern most sentry to JnK (esp chicken neck area), but JnK does not have the level of strategic assets and population to defend as the other areas....so with 5 strategic AWACS, I do not see one being dedicated there purely. But it could potentially have a smaller one or two there depending on what type of operations the army want to conduct from there against the opponent. Maybe with time as sentry numbers are increased it will get a large strategic dedicated platform too....but right now I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes this was tested, demonstrated and confirmed earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Its potent capability that IAF should not underestimate. But the Phalcon AWACS has the nature of AESA going for it which is very difficult to jam given its multi-band, low amplitude spectrum....and the fact it can act as PESA at any time should the need arise. I believe the PAF doctrine would focus more on using its air assets to counter intruder AWACS (which would be more likely to be the embraer platforms) and rather target the strategic ones with AWACs killing missiles when the opportunity presents itself (with a lot of finger crossing involved).
> 
> How the situation evolves with the years to come as more technologies come online (Ga-N vs Ga-As adoption, particular module upgrades NATO does for the E-3 which I am following closely and also how HARM seekers improve) remains to be seen. It will be a cat and mouse game like anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent. These were the points I expected someone to finally bring up when I quoted 400 km as the range.
> 
> Firstly its a range to horizon at maximum service ceiling. This is the maximum feasible pick up range (and you have to remember that an aircraft endurance sweet zone is not at its service ceiling....but thats another discussion for another time since we are talking maximum potential capability here).
> 
> Its effective range for ground hugging cruise missile tracking will of course be some fraction of this 400km...which is unknown and will probably remain so (it is dependent on the algorithm quality esp SNR processing channels). But I would imagine the Israelis have developed some pretty potent ones that the DRDO and others would have optimised for Indian conditions/use.
> 
> I would also imagine all clutter/noise/weather effects will be tested extensively in peace time against real low flying bogies and refine the algorithms as needed. It will definitely not be a "first time" experience for the AWAC operators during a potential conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually thats a wrong assertion. You should read up more on even legacy performance of AWAC systems against cruise missiles (even in ground hugging mode). With an AESA radar, operating in tandem with other AESA radars.....it would require a very stealthy missile to stand even a chance because of ISAR effects from its velocity. I will have to dig up some papers later for you to get what I mean here.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @Taygibay @Vergennes @Water Car Engineer


those awacs have an instrument range of 400 kmyou think your awacs can see a tiny jf-17 at 400km? no.
sticking 3 awacs in the air and saying we can see deep into pakistan whilst being in india is true to an extent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mrc

Nilgiri said:


> You need only look up the module upgrading of the E-3 sentry using such upgraded systems for PDNES and PDES scans (way back in the 80s and 90s):
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1989/1989 - 2614.PDF
> 
> There are more detailed papers on this upgrade but they are paid subscription only and subject to copyright etc so I wont post them here. You can do your own search to see whats available in google.
> 
> You can easily verify that such systems get continually upgraded as new threat sources become apparent:
> 
> http://www.militaryaerospace.com/ar...ild-power-amplifier-for-e-3-sentry-radar.html
> 
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/e3awacs/
> 
> Suffice to say a next generation AWACS like phalcon (considered the best in the world for a reason) would have a capability far in excess of the legacy E-3 sentries to begin with.....with algorithm refinement and upgrades backed up by hard cold testing by both the Israelis and Indians...anyone without any bias can see it will be a tough ask to get past a defensive matrix composed of such look down radars.




The only reliable tracking mechanism is the one called blimps, which are radars mounted on balloons that are said to be able to track ground huggers....but with proliferation of stealth every serious country will be developing stealthier versions of these missiles ....rcs as low as 0.00001 has been reported ( not by pakistan though, but far more easier to achieve as no requirement for external weapons stations) ...

Rest assured these ground huggers will remain a potent weapon in next 100 years and will be the cutting edge of next war between competent enemies...and will be the firat weapon to breach enemy airspace any 21st century war to come

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Blue Marlin said:


> those awacs have an instrument range of 400 kmyou think your awacs can see a tiny jf-17 at 400km? no.
> sticking 3 awacs in the air and saying we can see deep into pakistan whilst being in india is true to an extent.



A JF-17 would be picked up pretty near to 400 km. It is not a particularly stealthy target. If its low flying it may reduce to around a 300 km pick up range or so. Even the legacy E-3 sentry can do this quite comfortably.

We are specifically talking about low-RCS low flying bogies here.



Mrc said:


> The only reliable tracking mechanism is the one called blimps, which are radars mounted on balloons that are said to be able to track ground huggers....but with proliferation of stealth every serious country will be developing stealthier versions of these missiles ....rcs as low as 0.00001 has been reported ( not by pakistan though, but far more easier to achieve as no requirement for external weapons stations) ...
> 
> Rest assured these ground huggers will remain a potent weapon in next 100 years and will be the cutting edge of next war between competent enemies...and will be the firat weapon to breach enemy airspace any 21st century war to come



It's cat and mouse for the most part. Israeli ISAR algorithms have been quite notable...I talked with a NG engineer about it a few years back...and it surprised me to know the levels of bandwidth they had commited in their architecture. I cannot give any more details about it sorry....nor will I reveal what technologies are available for filtering and the nature of the low bypass filter chains.

Anyone can do a detailed search in their free time on what ISAR modules are and what their use is in detection algorithms for an AESA radar (esp one with overlap from multiple tandem systems).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mrc

Nilgiri said:


> A JF-17 would be picked up pretty near to 400 km. It is not a particularly stealthy target. If its low flying it may reduce to around a 300 km pick up range or so. Even the legacy E-3 sentry can do this quite comfortably.
> 
> We are specifically talking about low-RCS low flying bogies here.
> 
> 
> 
> It's cat and mouse for the most part. Israeli ISAR algorithms have been quite notable...I talked with a NG engineer about it a few years back...and it surprised me to know the levels of bandwidth they had commited in their architecture. I cannot give any more details about it sorry.




By the way the links u posted above talk of DETECTION not TRACKING....

A voyeur trying to see neighbours wife may be able to detect a low flying cruise missile with naked eye...
Do you think that represent a reliable defence ???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Blue Marlin

Nilgiri said:


> A JF-17 would be picked up pretty near to 400 km. It is not a particularly stealthy target. If its low flying it may reduce to around a 300 km pick up range or so. Even the legacy E-3 sentry can do this quite comfortably.
> 
> We are specifically talking about low-RCS low flying bogies here.


where did the e3 come from india has the a-50 and the swedish one. 
really around 400km? sure 400 km for a su-27/j-11 variant with tanks the armaments but not for a jf-17 more like 300km,
do note this plane is around the size of your tejas for perspective here. and when later variants have greater composite components then your looking at 250km best case.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

Mrc said:


> By the way the links u posted above talk of DETECTION not TRACKING....
> 
> A voyeur trying to see neighbours wife may be able to detect a low flying cruise missile with naked eye...
> Do you think that represent a reliable defence ???



Like I said, there are many sampling burst methods available to an AESA, optimised even on the basis of the initial detection.

Just like the carrier killer missile tech, stealthy low flying cruise missiles are no superweapon that cannot be countered.

Everything is cat and mouse.....and with Indian GDP growing the way it is....there is going to be a lot more cat than mouse in the long term.

Only when you have somewhat similar resources on both sides can assymetric warfare really produce a long term winnier like it did in the case of the US and USSR (e.g how the AGM-86B wreaked havoc on the resources the USSR had to put to countering it which made their top heavy centralised economy reach the tipping point).



Blue Marlin said:


> where did the e3 come from india has the a-50 and the swedish one.
> really around 400km? sure 400 km for a su-27/j-11 variant with tanks the armaments but not for a jf-17 more like 300km,
> do note this plane is around the size of your tejas for perspective here. and when later variants have greater composite components then your looking at 250km best case.



Its an AESA, sustained solid tracking would be within the 300 km range like you said....but burst methods will provide tracking in the 300 - 400 km range at large CL's....I can assure you that.

Anyway we are discussing really low RCS targets among clutter like terrain hugging cruise missiles here. The exact performance envelope of the phalcon radar and the modules it has to augment various capabilities are all secret here.

I brought in the E-3 as a reference of a legacy system (and you can look up its performance envelope relatively easily). An airbourne AESA would only improve upon it.....how much so remains to be speculated....but with what I know personally it is quite substantial given what has been developed since the 80s/90s.


----------



## Mrc

Nilgiri said:


> Just like the carrier killer missile tech, stealthy low flying cruise missiles are no superweapon that cannot be countered



Actually i agree with this one ... no technology is perfect...

By the way i would looove to hear about your counters for carier killer missile ,, df 21d u r talking about??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

raazh said:


> Last three items are interesting. All for (S20) Type 041 subs including Anti Ship missile. The order was in 2014 then I think it is safe to assume that the deal for these subs was signed either in 2014 or before 2014.


I recall that the deal was signed in 2011 when the prime minister at that time visited China.. but not many people here will believe it, eventhough it was big news (most probably for 6 and then another 2 afterwards/ later on)..


----------



## Nilgiri

Mrc said:


> Actually i agree with this one ... no technology is perfect...
> 
> By the way i would looove to hear about your counters for carier killer missile ,, df 21d u r talking about??



Well the "counters" stem more from capability holes in targetting blue water carrier groups or blue water targets in general.

These carrier groups will have to be allowed to be detected initially by some source and then guidance looped with dedicated C4I so that a carrier killer can get to the vicinity. This incoming missile would also be detected at some point rendering itself open to interception in a myriad of ways by the battle group....not to mention the final tracking and guidance requirements to account for battle group evasion tactics and launched EM/thermal countermeasures.

Basically there are many loops it will have to pass through to get a kill. Again it will be quite cat and mouse....nothing 100% absolute established....since you have a striving opposite force that is not going to let everything you plan go according to plan.

You can ask @Penguin and @Olaf One-Brow and others about it...they can add their inputs on what they think.

Example:

https://defence.pk/threads/pralay-new-missile-in-development.445351/page-3#post-8602553

Also please remember that PAF and Pakistan will (similar to India in defensive mindset) be testing their Cruise missile tactics and strategy with their own AWACS assets to see how best to evade them with offensive mindset  ...something India will also do likewise.

It is not a zero-sum fool proof game on either side in this matter. Everyone will hedge as best they can and scale up the successful lessons as best they can too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Nilgiri said:


> Its an AESA, sustained solid tracking would be within the 300 km range like you said....but burst methods will provide tracking in the 300 - 400 km range at large CL's....I can assure you that.
> 
> Anyway we are discussing really low RCS targets among clutter like terrain hugging cruise missiles here. The exact performance envelope of the phalcon radar and the modules it has to augment various capabilities are all secret here.
> 
> I brought in the E-3 as a reference of a legacy system (and you can look up its performance envelope relatively easily). An airbourne AESA would only improve upon it.....how much so remains to be speculated....but with what I know personally it is quite substantial given what has been developed since the 80s/90s.


i know what the e-3 is............ actually im sure the saudis have e-3's, infact they do and they are powered by the cfm-56's





what are the chances they come to the sky's near you? i mean would they say no?
infact they do have plenty of muslim "brothers" to get some very juicy kit.
anyway moving on...........
burst/pluse waves are high energy death sentances as the waves would go to and possibly beyond 400km where the adversary would get its signature and would spoof it. thinking of that awacs from both side would be opperating in conditions where there is high cyberware enviroments. and neither side knows what the other side has up their sleeves.
after listening to pakistan acm he said they are moving beyond 5th gen which means......... ucavs and what the dectection range of one of those? your talking 100km

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Blue Marlin said:


> what are the chances they come to the sky's near you? i mean would they say no?



RSAF kit is useless without the NATO operators...who definitely will not be attending. Besides that is all a hypothetical situation anyway and bears no relevance to India's own AWACs defense matrix.

I am using AWACs (E-3) here as a moniker for all AEW&C systems of course....since it set the naming rights like Xerox etc. did. I don't actually mean they original physical system in these scenarios I am talking about (other than when I'm talking about the reference performance we can expect to be improved upon by an AESA)



Blue Marlin said:


> burst/pluse waves are high energy death sentances as the waves would go to and possibly beyond 400km where the adversary would get its signature and would spoof it. thinking of that awacs from both side would be opperating in conditions where there is high cyberware enviroments. and neither side knows what the other side has up their sleeves.
> after listening to pakistan acm he said they are moving beyond 5th gen which means......... ucavs and what the dectection range of one of those? your talking 100km



I suggest you read up on how an AESA goes about doing this compared to a PESA. Amplitude peaks are substantially different....hence there is a much larger qualitative buffer over which an AESA can safely operate in burst mode compared to PESA.

Remember the IAF will test all of these ranges extensively and form operating doctrine appropriately.

Your 100 km number comes from which source? Does it account for newer gen AESA-only modules/modes and does it take into account what a formation of AESA aircraft (phalcon and drdo embraer) could do to improve detection ranges by multiple input streams through ISAR and all the other methods at their disposal?

Stand alone older gen numbers are a good base to start with, but what they specifically are now is anyones guess....other than "a lot better".....it would require a sensitivity study with data we do not have access to I am afraid (w.r.t RCS signature decrease of the bogies)


----------



## Blue Marlin

Nilgiri said:


> RSAF kit is useless without the NATO operators...who definitely will not be attending. Besides that is all a hypothetical situation anyway and bears no relevance to India's own AWACs defense matrix.
> 
> I am using AWACs (E-3) here as a moniker for all AEW&C systems of course....since it set the naming rights like Xerox etc. did. I don't actually mean they original physical system in these scenarios I am talking about (other than when I'm talking about the reference performance we can expect to be improved upon by an AESA)
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you read up on how an AESA goes about doing this compared to a PESA. Amplitude peaks are substantially different....hence there is a much larger qualitative buffer over which an AESA can safely operate in burst mode compared to PESA.
> 
> Remember the IAF will test all of these ranges extensively and form operating doctrine appropriately.
> 
> Your 100 km number comes from which source? Does it account for newer gen AESA-only modules/modes and does it take into account what a formation of AESA aircraft (phalcon and drdo embraer) could do to improve detection ranges by multiple input streams through ISAR and all the other methods at their disposal?
> 
> Stand alone older gen numbers are a good base to start with, but what they specifically are now is anyones guess....other than "a lot better".....it would require a sensitivity study with data we do not have access to I am afraid (w.r.t RCS signature decrease of the bogies)


no really the saudis can use them when ever they want, but they can be intregated to nato's c and c if needed.

yes i do knonw that aesa radars are naturally more resisant to high electronic warfare enviroments

well if an f35 can with in 100km of an s400 then a smaller wingbody ucav would go with in 100km easily and that would be a conservative estimate. but thats at least 5 years away


----------



## Nilgiri

Blue Marlin said:


> well if an f35 can with in 100km of an s400



S-400 has an airbourne X-band AESA radar?


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

Nilgiri said:


> You can ask @Penguin and @Olaf One-Brow and others about it...they can add their inputs on what they think.



If you're looking for an in-depth comment or quality insight you've come to the wrong American. If you'd like the recipe for a batch of wonderful chocolate chip cookies, I've got you covered:

*Ingredient*:
- 2 1/4 cups (530 ml) flour
- 1 teaspoon (5 ml) salt
- 1 teaspoon (5 ml) baking soda
- 1 cup (240 ml) butter, softened but not melted (2 standard American sticks / 250 g)
- 3⁄4 cup (180 ml) packed brown sugar (165 g)
- 3⁄4 cup (180 ml) granulated sugar (or 150 g)
- 2 large eggs
- 1 teaspoon (5 ml) vanilla extract
- 1 to 2 cups (240 to 470 ml) chocolate chips (168 to 336 g)

*Starter/Beginning*:
1.Preheat the oven to 375°F/190°C.
2.In a medium bowl, combine flour, salt, and baking soda. To reduce clumpiness, sift through a sifter or sieve. Gently mix these together, then set the bowl aside.
3.In a large bowl, beat the butter and sugars together, then beat in eggs and vanilla extract, vanilla essence . The coarseness of the sugar granules will help break the butter down, so be sure to do this first. Then add the eggs and vanilla and mix again until completely combined.
4.Gradually a cup at a time add the dry ingredients from the medium bowl to the wet ingredients in the large bowl, then add chocolate chips. Pour a cup of the dry ingredients, stir, and repeat until the dry and wet ingredients are totally combined. Fold the chocolate chips in until fully incorporated. At this point you should have a moderately thick cookie dough.
- Do not over-stir the dough. While the dry ingredients should be added gradually, don’t do so little at a time that your dough turns to brick. Aim for adding the dry ingredients in four or five batches.
5.Drop spoonfuls of cookie dough onto a pre-greased or a lined baking sheet. Leave at least an inch of space between the cookies because they'll spread out when they bake. You can usually fit 12 cookies on a full-sized cookie sheet at a time
6.Bake for about 9 to 11 minutes or until light golden brown. Do not over bake; if you do the cookies will be dark brown and burnt. Remove the pan from the oven and let the cookies rest on the pan for 3-4 minutes.
7.Using a spatula, lift cookies off and place onto wax paper or a cooling rack. Let cool for about 5-7 minutes.
8.Eat when hot and steamy or cooled and slightly crisp. If you like you can pipe a small swirl of icing or whipping cream on top and add some sprinkles to make it look fancy.



Nilgiri said:


> You can ask @Penguin and @Olaf One-Brow and others about it...they can add their inputs on what they think.



Actually I'm just messing with you @Nilgiri .

@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.

These include electronic countermeasures, both offensive and defensive to either attack the targeting systems like OTH radars, remote sensing satellites, sea and subsurface sensors and airborne sensors operating as either a communications node or sensor themselves.

Keep in mind none of these types of long-range targeting options are new. Each was seen with the Soviet Union's long-range AShMs where either satellites, submarines or orbiting aircraft like TU-95 would act as either the eyes, relay or targeting platform for the missiles targeting US targets.






In addition to attacking the targeting, updating or tracking platforms, defense electronic support methods would include actions against he DF series missile's own sensors. If it has electronic components, it can be effected.

Offensive support options would be attacking the missiles themselves to damage or degrade launching mechanisms such as remote firing controls or warhead arming sequencers. Attacking command, control and communications capabilities could leave the battery blinded and deaf to OTH radars, satellites or any supporting asset that would be communicating targeting, tracking or updates to the battery. We could also effect the command structure of the military itself to send false intelligence, signals or commands.

Electronic support options are hardly the only methods that could be leveraged. The Standard Missile 3 was purpose built to degrade missiles of the DF series. These would include the shorter and longer ranged weapons as well. Future blocks of the SM-3, this being the SM-3 Block IIA. seen here during a test flight:






Are being built with ICBMs in mind. It has a range greater then existing blocks, in excess of 1500+km and a flight altitude approaching 800+km. This capability against long range missiles is being furthered with a new warhead called the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle.This is an older version of the MOKV. The current version is still classified.






It is being developed to defeat MIRV warheads and decoys.

Moving back to the medium and intermediate ranged DF series, the DF-21 and DF-26, we see the SM-3 demonstrating the capability to defeat these classes of targets such as the E-lralt test vehicle.






LV-2 as well. It's a Poseidon C-3 IRBM itself. It predated the Trident missile and rather then junk the stockpile, it has been converted into a ABM test vehicle.






It's a proven capability of SM-3.






SM-3 also has an ASAT capability, which serves as a hard-kill augment to soft kill options. I'd also like to highlight that despite the recent heralding of quantum communications and cryptography as secure and "hack proof", these forms of communication are vulnerable to hack attacks and this has been demonstrated:

https://defence.pk/threads/breakthr...adband-closer-to-reality.369704/#post-7025476

The "hack" may not be traditional in the sense we tend to think of when discussing computer security, but methods exist to degrade or defeat such types of communications and have been demonstrated as viable and effective. Beyond hacking there are alternative methods that can be used to either guess or replicate the keys used to encrypt messages. And this isn't to even get into COMSEC protocols of plain-text messages, since we humans can't read communications in their quantum state.

In case you weren't aware, I'm PDF's communications go-to member.

These are but a few of the options the US can leverage against a DF series AShM. Other methods such as stand-off engagements involving new doctrines like Cooperative Engagement Capability or Engage On Remote will also help the US Navy and Air Force engage adversaries at range. Ranges where the USN or USAF would have sufficient time to detect, track and engage countermeasures against hostile systems.

The USN's new E-2D has helped to demonstrate CEC and allow the SM-6 to maximize its range of 500+nm against missile and aircraft targets. Its range against surface ships is lower, but still at stand-off ranges. CEC allows a launching platform to leverage the sensors of allied assets for slewing, cueing, targeting and updates for OTH engagements. All without the launching platform needing to use its own sensors. In many respects its a modernized version of the Soviet relay system,

These are methods other navies could also leverage, though many, if not all are behind the US in this respect. But these are by no means the sole tricks the USN has or has developed. Both the US and Russia had ASBM programs and are familiar with them and their limitations, physics and capabilities.

For the US this was Pershing II.






The program was cancelled due to arms reduction treaties which pulled the Pershing II out of service.

Russia's program was the NATO designated SS-NX-13. It's also known as the R-27, a version of it anyway - the world's first ASBM - the same missile North Korea is attempting to arm a SSB with.






The DF series are known systems and the USN and peer nations have taken notice. Countermeasures, some old, some new are being developed or refined to meet the threat. These types of weapons aren't new. Their kill-chain is similar to the Soviet Navy relay system used on long-range anti-ship weapons, especially those fired by SSG or SSGNs.






They are familiar and they can be defeated with familiar options. But they are a threat that we take seriously and a lot of resources and minds are being put to defeating them, whether the threat is realized or not, we will ensure we are prepared to meet it.

...

We've also got a bit off topic. If you'd like my input, feel free to ask however.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Olaf One-Brow said:


> If you're looking for an in-depth comment or quality insight you've come to the wrong American. If you'd like the recipe for a batch of wonderful chocolate chip cookies, I've got you covered:
> 
> *Ingredient*:
> - 2 1/4 cups (530 ml) flour
> - 1 teaspoon (5 ml) salt
> - 1 teaspoon (5 ml) baking soda
> - 1 cup (240 ml) butter, softened but not melted (2 standard American sticks / 250 g)
> - 3⁄4 cup (180 ml) packed brown sugar (165 g)
> - 3⁄4 cup (180 ml) granulated sugar (or 150 g)
> - 2 large eggs
> - 1 teaspoon (5 ml) vanilla extract
> - 1 to 2 cups (240 to 470 ml) chocolate chips (168 to 336 g)
> 
> *Starter/Beginning*:
> 1.Preheat the oven to 375°F/190°C.
> 2.In a medium bowl, combine flour, salt, and baking soda. To reduce clumpiness, sift through a sifter or sieve. Gently mix these together, then set the bowl aside.
> 3.In a large bowl, beat the butter and sugars together, then beat in eggs and vanilla extract, vanilla essence . The coarseness of the sugar granules will help break the butter down, so be sure to do this first. Then add the eggs and vanilla and mix again until completely combined.
> 4.Gradually a cup at a time add the dry ingredients from the medium bowl to the wet ingredients in the large bowl, then add chocolate chips. Pour a cup of the dry ingredients, stir, and repeat until the dry and wet ingredients are totally combined. Fold the chocolate chips in until fully incorporated. At this point you should have a moderately thick cookie dough.
> - Do not over-stir the dough. While the dry ingredients should be added gradually, don’t do so little at a time that your dough turns to brick. Aim for adding the dry ingredients in four or five batches.
> 5.Drop spoonfuls of cookie dough onto a pre-greased or a lined baking sheet. Leave at least an inch of space between the cookies because they'll spread out when they bake. You can usually fit 12 cookies on a full-sized cookie sheet at a time
> 6.Bake for about 9 to 11 minutes or until light golden brown. Do not over bake; if you do the cookies will be dark brown and burnt. Remove the pan from the oven and let the cookies rest on the pan for 3-4 minutes.
> 7.Using a spatula, lift cookies off and place onto wax paper or a cooling rack. Let cool for about 5-7 minutes.
> 8.Eat when hot and steamy or cooled and slightly crisp. If you like you can pipe a small swirl of icing or whipping cream on top and add some sprinkles to make it look fancy.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I'm just messing with you @Nilgiri .
> 
> @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.
> 
> These include electronic countermeasures, both offensive and defensive to either attack the targeting systems like OTH radars, remote sensing satellites, sea and subsurface sensors and airborne sensors operating as either a communications node or sensor themselves.
> 
> Keep in mind none of these types of long-range targeting options are new. Each was seen with the Soviet Union's long-range AShMs where either satellites, submarines or orbiting aircraft like TU-95 would act as either the eyes, relay or targeting platform for the missiles targeting US targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to attacking the targeting, updating or tracking platforms, defense electronic support methods would include actions against he DF series missile's own sensors. If it has electronic components, it can be effected.
> 
> Offensive support options would be attacking the missiles themselves to damage or degrade launching mechanisms such as remote firing controls or warhead arming sequencers. Attacking command, control and communications capabilities could leave the battery blinded and deaf to OTH radars, satellites or any supporting asset that would be communicating targeting, tracking or updates to the battery. We could also effect the command structure of the military itself to send false intelligence, signals or commands.
> 
> Electronic support options are hardly the only methods that could be leveraged. The Standard Missile 3 was purpose built to degrade missiles of the DF series. These would include the shorter and longer ranged weapons as well. Future blocks of the SM-3, this being the SM-3 Block IIA. seen here during a test flight:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are being built with ICBMs in mind. It has a range greater then existing blocks, in excess of 1500+km and a flight altitude approaching 800+km. This capability against long range missiles is being furthered with a new warhead called the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle.This is an older version of the MOKV. The current version is still classified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is being developed to defeat MIRV warheads and decoys.
> 
> Moving back to the medium and intermediate ranged DF series, the DF-21 and DF-26, we see the SM-3 demonstrating the capability to defeat these classes of targets such as the E-lralt test vehicle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LV-2 as well. It's a Poseidon C-3 IRBM itself. It predated the Trident missile and rather then junk the stockpile, it has been converted into a ABM test vehicle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a proven capability of SM-3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SM-3 also has an ASAT capability, which serves as a hard-kill augment to soft kill options. I'd also like to highlight that despite the recent heralding of quantum communications and cryptography as secure and "hack proof", these forms of communication are vulnerable to hack attacks and this has been demonstrated:
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/breakthr...adband-closer-to-reality.369704/#post-7025476
> 
> The "hack" may not be traditional in the sense we tend to think of when discussing computer security, but methods exist to degrade or defeat such types of communications and have been demonstrated as viable and effective. Beyond hacking there are alternative methods that can be used to either guess or replicate the keys used to encrypt messages. And this isn't to even get into COMSEC protocols of plain-text messages, since we humans can't read communications in their quantum state.
> 
> In case you weren't aware, I'm PDF's communications go-to member.
> 
> These are but a few of the options the US can leverage against a DF series AShM. Other methods such as stand-off engagements involving new doctrines like Cooperative Engagement Capability or Engage On Remote will also help the US Navy and Air Force engage adversaries at range. Ranges where the USN or USAF would have sufficient time to detect, track and engage countermeasures against hostile systems.
> 
> The USN's new E-2D has helped to demonstrate CEC and allow the SM-6 to maximize its range of 500+nm against missile and aircraft targets. Its range against surface ships is lower, but still at stand-off ranges. CEC allows a launching platform to leverage the sensors of allied assets for slewing, cueing, targeting and updates for OTH engagements. All without the launching platform needing to use its own sensors. In many respects its a modernized version of the Soviet relay system,
> 
> These are methods other navies could also leverage, but are by no means the sole tricks the USN has or has developed. Both the US and Russia had ASBM programs and are familiar with them and their limitations, physics and capabilities.
> 
> For the US this was Pershing II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The program was cancelled due to arms reduction treaties which pulled the Pershing II out of service.
> 
> Russia's program was the NATO designated SS-NX-13. It's also known as the R-27, a version of it anyway - the world's first ASBM - the same missile North Korea is attempting to arm a SSB with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DF series are known systems and the USN and peer nations have taken notice. Countermeasures, some old, some new are being developed or refined to meet the threat. These types of weapons aren't new. Their kill-chain is similar to the Soviet Navy relay system used on long-range anti-ship weapons, especially those fired by SSG or SSGNs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are familiar and they can be defeated with familiar options. But they are a threat that we take seriously and a lot of resources and minds are being put to defeating them, whether the threat is realized or not, we will ensure we are prepared to meet it.
> 
> ...
> 
> We've also got a bit off topic. If you'd like my input, feel free to ask however.



I always like a dash of cinnamon in my C-C cookies  Last time I made em, I used oatmeal as the base too....turned out great!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

Nilgiri said:


> I always like a dash of cinnamon in my C-C cookies  Last time I made em, I used oatmeal as the base too....turned out great!



Not big into cinnamon myself, though a rum base goes nicely, but oatmeal is the only way they should be made.

Damn we're off topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Olaf One-Brow said:


> Not big into cinnamon myself, though a rum base goes nicely, but oatmeal is the only way they should be made.
> 
> Damn we're off topic.



Yeah rum! I find grand marnier also adds a nice accent esp if you use a cpl macadamia nuts and white chocolate bits.

Can't wait till winter and I have more free time to get baking more


----------



## Signalian

war&peace said:


> Once you have destroyed the radar then rest is easy .


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.


----------



## Signalian

Nilgiri said:


> Not entirely sure, but phalcon sized AWACS performing in this role will be well within Indian airspace protecting cities, strategic assets and supply chains etc... They will be afforded the maximum defense from other IAF and army aviation assets too.
> 
> I am talking of course in the future when there are at least 5 of them....and which will be ramped up to larger numbers with time.
> 
> It will be the embraer AWACS that will provide more flexible tactical coverage for Indian forward forces I would imagine....the aircraft itself being a smaller target, more maneuverable (for evasion) while still packing a real punch etc.... How those will be integrated in the system I am talking about (a look down defensive matrix) will remain to be seen since their capabilities are still being developed.


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. 




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 





So till now, the use of CM's/UAV/UCAV for SEAD/DEAD ops is not required unless south-western part of Indian radar and SAM assets need to be taken out, but i doubt it.



> Assuming 5 AWACS with 3 in the air at any time....I would imagine something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With gentle turn holding patterns for each one till they are rotated by a replacement. The smaller AWACS platforms will add on top of this as will any additional large Phalcon sized AWACS the IAF gets beyond the 5 it will be operating in the near future. I would assume it would be the smaller ones that would be changing sector given operational needs within IND or PAK airspace....but the phalcons themselves are more strategic I would imagine and must not venture into Pakistan airspace I think.
> 
> Some protection will be afforded by the northern most sentry to JnK (esp chicken neck area), but JnK does not have the level of strategic assets and population to defend as the other areas....so with 5 strategic AWACS, I do not see one being dedicated there purely. But it could potentially have a smaller one or two there depending on what type of operations the army want to conduct from there against the opponent. Maybe with time as sentry numbers are increased it will get a large strategic dedicated platform too....but right now I don't think so.


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


> I believe so.


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




> Yes this was tested, demonstrated and confirmed earlier.


This means IAF can form a potent aerial AD network through Mig-29 and Mig-21 and top tier being SU 30MKI.



> Its potent capability that IAF should not underestimate. But the Phalcon AWACS has the nature of AESA going for it which is very difficult to jam given its multi-band, low amplitude spectrum....and the fact it can act as PESA at any time should the need arise. I believe the PAF doctrine would focus more on using its air assets to counter intruder AWACS (which would be more likely to be the embraer platforms) and rather target the strategic ones with AWACs killing missiles when the opportunity presents itself (with a lot of finger crossing involved).
> 
> How the situation evolves with the years to come as more technologies come online (Ga-N vs Ga-As adoption, particular module upgrades NATO does for the E-3 which I am following closely and also how HARM seekers improve) remains to be seen. It will be a cat and mouse game like anything else.


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.



> Excellent. These were the points I expected someone to finally bring up when I quoted 400 km as the range.
> 
> Firstly its a range to horizon at maximum service ceiling. This is the maximum feasible pick up range (and you have to remember that an aircraft endurance sweet zone is not at its service ceiling....but thats another discussion for another time since we are talking maximum potential capability here).
> Its effective range for ground hugging cruise missile tracking will of course be some fraction of this 400km...which is unknown and will probably remain so (it is dependent on the algorithm quality esp SNR processing channels). But I would imagine the Israelis have developed some pretty potent ones that the DRDO and others would have optimised for Indian conditions/use.
> 
> I would also imagine all clutter/noise/weather effects will be tested extensively in peace time against real low flying bogies and refine the algorithms as needed. It will definitely not be a "first time" experience for the AWAC operators during a potential conflict.


I was hoping for some calculations from your side when you mentioned "technicalities" in some other post.

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?)

Softwares can be made upgraded to increase electronic output from sensors/antennas/radars or to detect more types of hardwares/metallic surfaces/ etc.

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) 

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. 

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

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mrc

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



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.....


----------



## Arsalan

war&peace said:


> Once you have destroyed the radar then rest is easy .


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.


So no, it is not THAT easy.


----------



## Nilgiri

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.



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



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.



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.



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?



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.



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?)



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)



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.



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?



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

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taygibay

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.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## war&peace

Arsalan said:


> You missed the point:


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.


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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

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.


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


----------



## war&peace

Arsalan said:


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


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.


----------



## Olaf One-Brow

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..



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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

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.



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!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

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

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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.


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.


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).


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



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



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.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Nilgiri

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.



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?



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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

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



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.



Tom Clancy, are we?

There is no H4, and no LD10 on JFT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> Tom Clancy, are we?
> 
> There is no H4, and no LD10 on JFT.



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.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

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.



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"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Bilal Khan 777 said:


> 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"



I certainly don't have to post according "YOUR" beliefs and realities. Gotta put u ignore list now so this was my last reply to you.Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

Sarge said:


> 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.


On couple of charts about weapon stations of Jf17 with weapon package mention that it can carry BVR at wing tips. It's non official stuff.
But yes. There is no official claim or visual proof that Jf17 can carry BVR at wing tip hardpoints.


Bilal Khan 777 said:


> There is no LD-10, operating or ordered by the Pakistan.
> I have another theory. There is no LD10.


Let's assume it is.
So technically is it possible to mount a ARM on similar hardpoints as its air to air counterpart ?


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> On couple of charts about weapon stations of Jf17 with weapon package mention that it can carry BVR at wing tips. It's non official stuff.
> But yes. There is no official claim or visual proof that Jf17 can carry BVR at wing tip hardpoints.
> 
> Let's assume it is.
> So technically is it possible to mount a ARM on similar hardpoints as its air to air counterpart ?



There isnt much available info on LD-10 but since it shares similarities with SD-10, i think it could be possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan 777

Tipu7 said:


> On couple of charts about weapon stations of Jf17 with weapon package mention that it can carry BVR at wing tips. It's non official stuff.
> But yes. There is no official claim or visual proof that Jf17 can carry BVR at wing tip hardpoints.
> 
> Let's assume it is.
> So technically is it possible to mount a ARM on similar hardpoints as its air to air counterpart ?



The BVR cannot be carried on the wingtips. The ARM, if ever completed, would be carried on the same station as SD10.



Sarge said:


> I certainly don't have to post according "YOUR" beliefs and realities. Gotta put u ignore list now so this was my last reply to you.Thank you.



Thank you. I will miss you.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Arsalan

war&peace said:


> 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.


Boss those ground based radars will be scattered all across the terrain making it nearly impossible to taken them all out. This is the main advantage of integrated system and net-centric capability. Hypothetically speaking, yes it means you need to take out more radars in a short space of time but practically, it wont be possible and you will have those S400 flying at you.

In short, integrated systems are a good deterrent. Though NO SYSTEM is undefeated but what matters are is the chances of it surviving. With integrated systems and net-centric capability, one increases the effectiveness of ground based defense systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ZAC1

Gryphon said:


> _LD-10 ARM_
> 
> SIPRI reports that Pakistan has received 50 (out of 100 ordered) LD-10 anti-radiation missiles from China in 2014 and 2015. These missiles were ordered in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Source: SIPRI_


one can imagine our army is well equipped...happy to see huge numbers of air defence systempurchased...fm-90 in armoured columns.....
well these are all old purchases in 2014...its now 2018...alot is hidden n for surprise...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanasifm

Pat had Mar-1 which is same class as ld-10

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/pl-16.htm
https://www.popsci.com/missiles-zhuhai-china-displays-new-strike-arsenal


----------



## khanasifm

?? I would not believe any of these sites 

http://www.deagel.com/Offensive-Weapons/CM-102_a003173001.aspx


----------



## JohnWick

BVR missiles like the size of LD-10 ART can be very useful for blk 1 and blk 2 .....


----------



## Reichsmarschall

zebra7 said:


> In case of what India have, did you forgot the development of *NGARM Missile* (Range 100-125 km) been developed by the DRDO.


what is the status of this missile?
@Future Author


----------

