You haven't seen anything yet, Gambit isn't here but when he's in the mood the amount of raw data he can bombard a guy with requires hours of un-packing in order to collate in a coherent manner. I swear, 10-15 detailed questions later one is still left knackered because there is just so much of information for a non-technical/professional to swallow. And a munshi like me obviously ends up woefully freaked.
The most help I can do is to provide information at the foundational level of these things, either to clear up misconceptions or to debunk fantastic claims, particularly from the Chinese quarter here.
Reading the article, I hesitate to be generous and call it an 'analysis'. All the author seemed to have done is cite hardware capabilities and some specs, not much in terms of the tactical utility of each piece. Perhaps that is his goal, but if so, then do not call it an 'analysis'. Anyone could do what he did and come to a conclusion, perhaps not the same as his or perhaps the same, but that ease should be enough to discourage the label of 'analysis'. At the very least, he should have give some examples of the tactical usage of each piece and how one side can use one tactical advantage to nullify or even defeat the other side's.
Remember: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed.
An advantage is a rule and one should always strive to simultaneously force one's opponent to fight under one's advantages while avoiding his. Probably he would have come to the same conclusion, that of no clear advantage, but it would have been caveat-ed as no clear tactical advantage due to no clear technical advantage.
That said, even though I hesitate to make any tactical analyses since I do not live over there, do not know the financials of both countries, and do not know the array of each military, I am curious about one tactical aspect...
GIRAFFE radars also give automatic hovering helicopter detection, which is an artillery and mortar locating function that allow the radars to detect incoming rounds and give 20 seconds or more of warning before impact. A skilled crew can deploy these radars in around 10 minutes and recover it in around 6 minutes.
Source:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...-radar-tech-pakistan-india.html#ixzz2iQuU7dxN
As highlighted, why is that significant for Pakistan?
For the interested lay readers, there is something called the RADAM algorithm (radar detection of agitated metals)...
Analysis of radar detection of agitated metals (RADAM)
It has been observed that the radar returns from moving multielement metal targets often exhibit an unexpected modulation that has both random (or noise-like) and semicoherent components. One possible mechanism for producing this effect is the modification of the current distribution on the target that results when electrical contacts between target elements are altered intermittently by the forces associated with target motion. Such intermittent-contact modulation must be considered in the design of a radar for detecting or identifying a target exhibiting this effect. Depending on the application, the observer may wish to enhance or suppress the observation of the effect, or it may be important that the effect itself be enhanced or suppressed in the object being observed. To accomplish any of these, the effect must be well understood, and we have therefore undertaken a program of research to study the radar detection of agitated metals (RADAM). This report summarizes our progress during the second year of the program. The overall objectives of our RADAM research program are to (1) identify and isolate the physical processes and mechanisms that contribute to a RADAM signature, (2) identify and explain important recognizable features of the signature, and (3) determine means for separating the significant identifying components of the signature from nonmeaningful components.
Simply put...The RADAM algorithm searches for opposite but complementary signals that exhibits predictable behaviors inside a virtual boundary. A helo's rotor is an example.
If you are looking at a two-blade rotor while it is in motion (virtual boundary) you will have one blade moving away from you and one blade moving towards you at 180 deg difference/opposite. The dominant component inside the total return will be the Doppler component. If you are looking at a three-blade rotor, you will have blades Doppler components of equal degrees of separation while in motion. A four-blade rotor assembly will have 90 degrees of separation.
Same concept when looking at a wheel. If there are upper spokes, there must be lower spokes and all have equal degrees of Doppler separation.
If you have enough of these signatures, you can compile a library of known rotor assemblies of helos in the world, or truck wheels, or tank tracks, or even jet engines. Which leads back to the question of why did Pakistan bought the GIRAFFE system?
When you go shopping for a radar system, air defense or air traffic control, you enter the market with a highest priority technical capability in mind. For example...If the system is intended for short range air traffic control with short range meaning your airliners are close enough that they are readied for line up instructions for landing, you want a system with higher freq, with shorter pulse repetition, and complex pulse characteristics to help you discriminate various sizes of incoming aircrafts. All of these calculations will be done for you transparently.
But just because you entered the market with a highest technical priority, that does not mean you ignore other capabilities any system can do besides the one capability you want. Flight path projections based upon history is nice to have. So does wind shear alert if such a condition arises unexpectedly. If the system is 'smart' enough, it can even recommend which target should land first based upon certain factors that you decided earlier. You would ask the seller what else can his product do.
Did Pakistan asked the Swede seller specifically about helo detection?
What make helo detection difficult is not the RADAM algorithm. We had to write one in training, even with pseudo-code. But the difficulty here is that helo is usually a low altitude aircraft that often blends in with the background, visually and electromagnetically, making data extraction from the RADAM algorithm problematic. Everything is about the sophistication of data gathering and data extraction methods.
So how capable is this for the GIRAFFE system? Did Pakistan knew about it before asking for more details and purchased it? Or did the Swede seller mentioned it, showed how capable it was, and Pakistan bought it? Either way, it begs the question of what does Pakistan guessed, or heavens forbid know, of the Indian Army's tactical usage of its helo fleet to weigh in on purchasing the system.
When you have to rely on purchasing your defense, intelligence about potential adversaries is even more important than when you are capable of creating your own to tailor to your tactical needs. You are essentially at the mercy of whoever selling a product that allegedly have the capabilities you need/want. You enter the market armed with that intelligence and assess the products offered to you.
Pakistan did not purchased the GIRAFFE with that feature just because it is a nice thing to have but 'I really do not need it.' Not even Saddam Hussein was that stupid and he had a professional to shop for the Iraqi military.
"(or whatever jargon they use)
