• Sunday, December 15, 2019

Featured Anatomy of the Hatf-VIII Ra’ad Air Launched Cruise Missile

Discussion in 'Pakistan Strategic Forces' started by JamD, Jun 27, 2016.

  1. CriticalThought

    CriticalThought SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,970
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    Ratings:
    +9 / 5,645 / -6
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Mate you think I didn't know all this before I wrote that? I have seen your posts in the past as well and u r one of the lobbyists on the forum who tries to create an aura of American invincibility. The reality could not be further from the truth.

    The state of the art in radar technology and what it can achieve is well known around the world, because the laws of physics are well known. F-35 isn't the only program that has worked on sensor fusion.

    Every radar system suffers from false positives. And i can assure you, if America ever faced the likes of Russia and China, they WILL exploit this. There is no big deal in bombing Syria after the Israeli and Russian premiers held a meeting. This is a rigged game in Syria.

    Similarly, there simply isn't such a thing as full stealth today. Modern AEWACS can simply brute force their way around stealth. Active cancellation is limited by computing power. Geometrical design protects against certain frequencues. RAM coatings become overheated. Composites are vulnerable to detection at the correct angle.

    Finally, if F-35 can jam missiles, then the enemy can also jam it's missiles. Take out the very small bite of internal payload that it can carry, and the F-35 is a sitting duck. And it will be a hoot if they need to send in multiple of these 100+ million dollar planes so they can have the punching power of 8 missiles LOL.

    The truth is, against enemies like China and Russia, the mission profile of F-35 will change to a support role. This brings the equation back to 4th gen fighters.

    American invincibility is dead.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. LeGenD

    LeGenD ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,007
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +22 / 8,370 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    So you have figured it all out by sitting at home? Your assumptions are just that - assumptions.

    "The F-35 has an integrated stealth design, meaning it not only minimizes "signatures" in the microwave segment of the spectrum used by radar, but also the infrared and visible-light segments exploited by electro-optical sensors. Emissions from on-board communications equipment are also managed to leave enemies with few options for finding the fighter. So while a long-wavelength search radar might occasionally detect a distant F-35, there will usually be no way of tracking or targeting it." - Loren Thompson

    Please explain to me how AEWACS is going to brute force through the principles of low-observation at long range.

    Secondly, you are assuming that a country can employ sufficient electronic warfare muscle to jam scores of AMRAAM while they move towards their intended targets. This is a tall claim for even a country such as Russia and/or China. Please go through the responses in this link: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-an-SU-35-can-easily-jam-an-AMRAAM-120D-AIM9X-making-an-F-35’s-BVR-capabilities-less-effective

    - and enlighten yourself. F-35 is designed to defeat defenses of a resourceful adversary from the get-go; it is not designed for COIN although it play a role in this respect.

    As for your claim of the game being rigged in Syria:-

    Read this article and enlighten yourself: https://www.news.com.au/technology/...a/news-story/d6a23877eb34b71bf8e3168b8f06e1d8

    END GAME

    Like the British submarine, neither the USS Donald Cook or USS Winston Churchill actually fired any Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    It may never have been the point of their presence.

    They were a distraction. A diversion.

    Russia appears to have focused all its attention on these easily seen ‘threats’.

    Instead, six Tomahawk cruise missiles suddenly appeared out of the Eastern Mediterranean from the hidden Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine USS John Warner.

    All the 105 US, British and French missiles came from unexpected directions.

    Bombers had refuelled at and above Cyprus before dashing in to unleash their guided weapons. Tomahawks were fired from warships in the Red Sea to the south and the Persian Gulf to the east.

    It was all intended to overwhelm Syria’s defences.


    It isn't.

    Russia wasn't onboard with NATO-led strikes across Syria. They were simply informed in advance that strikes will take place - nothing much else.

    Russia is also utilizing its electronic warfare capabilities to disrupt operations of drones across Syria: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19747585/russia-jamming-us-drones-over-syria/

    Problem is that advanced American military assets are not easy to jam (virtually impossible); US isn't vulnerable in these matters like Ukraine.

    The master of warfare is an underdog? Please compare R&D sector (and) defense budget of US with that of any other country. American weaponry is also superior to that of Russian and Chinese on average. Common sense.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  3. CriticalThought

    CriticalThought SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,970
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    Ratings:
    +9 / 5,645 / -6
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    One needs to separate hype from facts. That is common sense. And you have done nothing but quoted hype. Explaining how stealth can be overcome is going to take a bit more time than I am willing to give right now. So I will reply again.
     
  4. LeGenD

    LeGenD ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,007
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +22 / 8,370 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Really? I am not interested in theoretical claims of Russia in regards to defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft such as F-35; they lie and exaggerate very often (personal assessment).

    Advanced SAM systems have failed to detect F-35 in exercises, designed to simulate real-time battlefield environment:-

    "The F-35s recently had to turn on their transponders in order to make an exercise against Patriot batteries useful (and don’t kid yourself, Patriots are the absolute top of the heap in their class of SAMs). The U.S. also owns an S-300 battery and the Navy has Aegis and E-2D, which is about as good as it gets. Point is…the F-35 was developed against very capable systems." - Cory stansbury (quora)

    News item:-

    "The F-35 has hit yet another snag. During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, US Air Force F-35A pilots set out to practice evading surface-to-air missiles, but they could not, because the SAM radars on the ground could not even find the ultra-stealthy planes.

    "If they never saw us, they couldn't target us," said Lt. Col. George Watkins, commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, told the Air Force Times.

    To participate in the exercise as planned, the F-35As had to turn on their transponders, essentially announcing their presence so the SAM sites could see and engage them.

    "We basically told them where we were at and said, 'Hey, try to shoot at us,'" said Watkins.

    Had Watkins and crew not turned on their transponders, "most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home."

    Air Force planners have been counting on the F-35's ability to enter heavily contested airspace unseen by enemy radar and missiles, and the result of this exercise seems to vindicate that strategy, to say the least.

    "When we go to train, it's really an unfair fight for the guys who are simulating the adversaries," Watkins continued. "We've been amazed by what we can do when we go up against fourth-gen adversaries in our training environment, in the air and on the ground."

    The idea that F-35s can enter the most heavily defended air spaces on earth, pass by undetected by SAM sites and radars, and soften up those targets as well as legacy fighters represents the entire reasoning behind the trillion-dollar thrust to get this weapons system in the air.

    Watkins said that with just four F-35s, he can "be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we're at and they can't see us and they can't target us."

    Watkins described a "pretty awesome feeling" seeing the grand plans of the F-35 come to fruition in a realistic training exercise, by rendering virtually all other platforms obsolete.


    Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8

    Low-frequency early warning radar systems are unreliable:-

    "Various countries have claimed over the last 30 years to be able to counter stealth by various means. The interesting part is that the means keep changing, and never seem to pan out. And, of course, all of those who claim to have countered stealth are those who don’t have it. The basic physics behind stealth haven’t changed in 30 years, and aren’t likely to change in the next 30.

    In the past 30 years, stealth aircraft have been extensively used and we have exactly one first generation stealth aircraft lost in combat. That’s a pretty extraordinary record. And the details of what happened to that aircraft are so obscure and classified that speculation is pointless. About the only thing we know for sure is that NATO restrictions on flight planning were so severe that the ill-fated F-117 was flying the same route, altitude and timings used night after night by other F-117s. No serious analyst has ever claimed stealth makes an aircraft invisible to radar, only that it radically reduces detection range. If you are constrained to using the same routes every night, it doesn’t take a genius to see the potential for disaster. However, that was a failure of tactics, not technology. Ask anyone in the stealth community, and they will tell you that tactics are just as important as technology — mess up with one, and the other won’t save you.

    I have a good friend who is an ex-USN submariner, and he used to refer to the USAF as the “junior stealth service.” It is an apt comparison, and one that speaks to the question at hand: people have claimed for decades that this or that technology would turn the oceans transparent and make it easy to find submarines. That, too, has never panned out.

    Two last points. An answer here listed a number of Russian systems that can “defeat” stealth. First off, Russian propaganda. Need I say more? Secondly, none of the aircraft listed are operational, and are highly unlikely to become so in the foreseeable future. The S-300/S-400 SAMs are formidable, but hardly the monsters they are often made out to be. They are vulnerable to attack, and their supporting radars with counter-stealth claims are, again, largely expensive upgrades of dubious capabilities.

    Finally, combat is an interesting thing. It almost never resembles a clean laboratory test. People on Quora seem to inordinately look at weapon systems like they are going to be used in one-on-one duels with no context or tactics involved. But that is ridiculous. Case in point: Yes, a stealth aircraft might give a return to a low-frequency early warning radar. However, the return will be small and intermittent as the aircraft moves through space. A modern synthetic unit would almost certainly fail to even display the hit. An older radar with a raw display would show it…and a thousand other similar hits from false targets. Further, the stealth aircraft is going to know about that radar long before the radar gets that hit, and will adjust course, speed and altitude accordingly. Oh yeah, and that large, basically immobile radar might be destroyed before our stealth aircraft is ever threatened.

    A friend of mine who had once been a HAWK SAM battery commander told me that after moving his trailer-mounted radars, it took a lot of time and effort to bring them back up and calibrate them. And often, they simply broke down during the move, and needed to be repaired. The system was advertised as being mobile, but my friend with first-hand experience poo-pooed the idea. The S-300/400 may be a more modern and rugged system than the HAWK of the 1970s, but how good will they be under combat conditions in the field? And in the hands of conscript troops who have never been known for their technical prowess?

    Russian/Chinese fanboys seem to think that stealth was invented four decades ago, and then left to fossilize. This, assuredly, is not the case. Second generation stealth was considerably (and visibly) better than the first generation, and the third generation is better than the second. Tactics and support have improved, as well. The problem is, if you don’t even have first generation stealth available to your forces, how can you anticipate where the technology and tactics are taking your opponent who has had it for four decades? The only way for you to find out is to face it in combat, and learn from your hard-won experience."
    - Peter Koves (Quora)

    Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Russia-can-detect-an-F35-with-their-latest-radar

    Related:-

    "But the same qualities that allow a low-frequency radar to detect a stealth fighter also prevent it from detecting the same aircraft with great precision. Mike Pietrucha, a former U.S. Air Force an electronic warfare officer, told reporter Dave Majumdar from The National Interest that early low-frequency radars could poinpoint a target’s location to within only 10,000 feet or so — not nearly accurately enough to guide a missile.

    For that reason, low-frequency radars such as Sunflower are useful only as early-warning systems. All they can do is alert air-defenders to the likely presence of low-observable aircraft in a general area."


    Source: https://warisboring.com/dont-sweat-russias-stealth-fighter-detecting-new-radar/

    No country is in the position to devise a reliable method to detect/take out entire squadrons of F-35 and F-22 in a battlefield scenario at present; these aircraft are able to see first (and shoot first) in comparison to any other airborne asset out there and defeat its electronic warfare capabilities in the process. They tend to achieve absurd kill-ratios in various battlefield simulations (AEWACS in the picture or not). Loren Thompson's disclosure is very telling in this respect.

    You are mistakenly assuming that Russia and/or China are at par with the US in the matters of defense; they are not. Russia haven't even fielded a decent stealthy aircraft so far; how is it going to figure out the intricacies of defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft of USAF? Doesn't add up.

    If India receive state-of-the-art weapon systems from US (and Russia), we would be in big trouble. Pakistan should have sufficient diplomatic clout to dissuade other countries from providing state-of-the-art weapon systems to India which would imbalance South Asian security situation.

    ---

    I also dispelled the notion that the game is rigged in Syria, with relevant disclosures which weren't public knowledge before. Pay heed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  5. Bratva

    Bratva PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    13,340
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Ratings:
    +48 / 20,700 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Qatar
    Any update on the air launched weapons ? @JamD The one JF-17 fired recently, was this one of the air launched weapons ?
     
  6. CriticalThought

    CriticalThought SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,970
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    Ratings:
    +9 / 5,645 / -6
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    The fact is, that the above is a long winded way of saying, 'We are better because we made it first'. The laws of physics are equal for both the Americans and the Russians/Chinese. Granted, a nation may not have the technology to realize the full envelope of what the laws of physics allow, but they still have the understanding. And based on that understanding, they can devise a strategy that is simply less complex.

    Stealth is not just a technology, it is a strategy. Like any strategy of waging war, stealth realizes on calculations of enemy capability AND knowledge. This 80s era technology was based on a number of factors:

    1. Most nations were supplied by Western arms, into which backdoors could be built, given an aura of invincibility to Western arms suppliers whenever an errant nation stepped out of line.

    2. The Western forces utilized espionage and influence to gain first hand knowledge of Russian technology, understand its limitations, and devise its counter.

    Stealth is a combination of both. Given American supremacy over a nation, there is no way to tell whether it is because of Radar Absorbing Materials, Radar cancelling geometric surfaces, a kill switch within their equipment, or wholesale defection of their generals. Stealth is the propaganda to divert attention from the full range of tactics employed.

    Today, this is no longer true. China does not buy arms from Western suppliers, especially not electronics. There is no large danger of a large portion of the communist party defecting. And China is very technologically advanced, understanding the bleeding edge of what's possible given the laws of physics. Given these facts, China can devise a counter to stealth that is cost effective and much simpler. There is no silver bullet solution, no one ring to rule them all, and stealth that can hide from every radar in the world. As such, what you have written above only reflects the degree to which you have bought into Western deception. Shame on you.
     
  7. LeGenD

    LeGenD ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,007
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +22 / 8,370 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    You sure about that? And WHAT METHODS do you think US has adopted to learn about about Chinese and/or Russian military experiments? I suppose that you know a thing or two about how SENSOR TECHNOLOGIES work.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    You were saying? Those radar systems are not cheap, and things do not look good beyond 0.1 RCS mark.

    There is no shame in coming to terms with the ground realities of the world, my friend. I am not asserting that F-22A and F-35 variants are virtually impossible to detect, only that they are very hard to detect due to numerous factors, and by the time this is the case, it will be too late to do much about them. This appears to be case in the foreseeable future.

    Perhaps you will understand my POV in this way. Suppose that you have managed to develop Suzuki Kizashi but your rival has developed Lamborghini Aventador. Well, you have a lot of catching to do.

    Nevertheless, this is an excellent read: https://aviationweek.com/site-files.../2017/12/12/State of Stealth FINAL 121317.pdf (PDF format alert)
     
  8. JamD

    JamD FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Ratings:
    +30 / 1,632 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Honestly, I am not sure. All I was told was the recent test was a "new product". The more time I spend in the US, the less my friends trust me with these things lol (which is fair).
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  9. JamD

    JamD FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Ratings:
    +30 / 1,632 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    I've been thinking about the recently fired air-launched weapon and I think I have some speculation that may be reasonable.

    1. Our armed forces announce and demonstrate weapons systems meant for nuclear deterrence quite openly. By which I mean they give names, ranges, and pictures. This makes sense as these weapon systems are meant for deterrence.
    2. The opposite is true for non-strategic systems. For example we rarely see pictures of Mirages with H2/H4 or MAR-1 for JF-17 or the BVRs for Mirages. For these systems deterrence is not the primary objective. The objective is to have a capability that the enemy cannot account for effectively. Only limited (non-strategic) deterrence is expected from such systems.
    3. I was told from multiple sources that there were multiple air-launched stand-off projects in the works.

    All of this leads me to believe that the recent test was of the "Ra'ad Lite" (naming credits: @Bilal Khan (Quwa) ). All the signs point to this. Ra'ad Lite would not be meant for nuclear delivery so the test was heavily censored and few details were revealed. It was also tested from a JF-17 and was a product made by the same guys that make the actual Ra'ad. I think the test was the first confirmation of Ra'ad Lite's existence. That's the good news.

    The bad news is that since it has been classified as a non-strategic weapon, we won't see much about it (not right way at least).
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  10. The Accountant

    The Accountant SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,721
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Ratings:
    +15 / 5,778 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I think the test was a message just to confirm that Balakot strikes involved a stand-off weapon being fired from Thunder and it was done at the time things were still hot so it was to creat a fear in the enemy that we have three aircraft capable of percision strike previously only F16s and Mirrages had the capabilities
     
  11. Quwa

    Quwa Research Partner

    Messages:
    2,550
    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Ratings:
    +46 / 4,535 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Canada
    The challenge with conventional munitions is that we might be relying on many different COTS suppliers.

    With the strategic stuff, most will probably confine any and all help to China; but conventional ALCMs, ARMs, AShMs, SOWs and the like, the help could come from a lot of places. Those places want to earn money, but they don't want the US knocking on their doors -- neither does Pakistan.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. JamD

    JamD FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    Ratings:
    +30 / 1,632 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Yes, agreed. I am just glad there is a Ra'ad Lite.
     
  13. Bilal Khan (Quwa)

    Bilal Khan (Quwa) SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,338
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2016
    Ratings:
    +21 / 8,891 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Canada
    Since the prospect of big-ticket items in the near-term is nil, I hope we concentrate what resources we have to munitions development. I think there's a big lesson to learn from South Africa here in concentrating on R&D and maximize the JF-17's utility through new missiles and glide bombs.

    One starting point could be to revive South Africa's ramjet R&D (in both SA and Pakistan) to create a new-gen BVRAAM and a lightweight ALCM/AShM. You might not have the fanciest fighters, but hey, 150 jets capable of deploying a Ra'ad Lite ALCM, supersonic-cruising AShM and ALCM, a Meteor-like BVRAAM, a HOBS AAM, and a plethora of other gliding SOWs and tactical missiles (e.g., ARMs, Brimstone-like AGMs, etc) could work...

    @denel Do you recall the Long Range Tactical Missile (LRTM) program?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  14. CriticalThought

    CriticalThought SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,970
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    Ratings:
    +9 / 5,645 / -6
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Very good ideas. Needs to be paired with indigenous AESA radar and EW pods.
     
  15. The Accountant

    The Accountant SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,721
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Ratings:
    +15 / 5,778 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Furthermore we desperateky need percision cluster munition for anti armour role like cbu 105 and also we need protection against it