sancho
ELITE MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/General.jpg)
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
I am sorry to reveal that
you embarrasingly citated a wrong example to prove your wrong POV
LOL nice try to distract from the actual matter.
![Lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/lol.gif)
Especially when your own sources show exactly what I said about using the radar data of the Flankers (but it's true that it were just K's, although it doesn't matter for the actual matter) for surveillance, to guide the other passive fighters and not include them in the attack formations:
USAF team leader Colonel Greg Newbech said:...
...“They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a (MiG-27) Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. They built a very good (radar) picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll (their aircraft) in and out.”
That's what the AWACS or mini AWACS role is about, diverting radar or signal data to others, while operating seperated from them, to not make them vulnerable to detection and to remain safe yourself.
So diverting that to the future IAF fleet, one could use LCA for escorting Rafale strike packages (both passive), while radar data of AWACS or active fighters, that operates outside of the enemy airspace, will be diverted by datalinks.
So whther stealthy or not IR emission from air friction from wings & fuselarge of a plane cant be ignored which the enemy fighter's IRST would detect it & no EW would work against IRST
Just that you have only a narrow field of view to detect IR signatures and that even to very low ranges. So compared to active radar detection, or signal detection via RWR, the IRST is the least useful sensor to provide early warning. So unless you have 100s of fighters, pointing their nose towards our airspace at any giving time, the chance to detect a strike package just by IRST is more than low.
Hmm
if your reffering to LIBYA example
No, I am refering on how Rafale or other fighters are used in SEAD operations. You always have 1 fighter that tries to provoke and detect the air defences and other, that will take them out. In Libya the only difference was, that the defence systems had low range and could be attacked with AASM from high altitude too, but if they are more capable, you need to bring the weapon closer to the target and the way to do that, is to avoid detection:
http://www11.pic-upload.de/12.09.14/g59er3ybged5.jpg
Becoz with awacs no matter how low you fly & whther your are in active or passive mode if your not stealthy & you are flying within the detection range of AWACS , then you cant hide
Which is not true, we know that low flying Russian fighters were able to avoid AWACS detection of US carrier groups. Greek Mirage 2000s and F16s were able to avoid E-2 detection during an exercise with the French carrier, not to mention that having AWACS alone doesn't help, if you can't put it in action in useful numbers to cover the whole area and in a useful rotation as it is the case for us now. We are able to support our fighters and ground troops with AWACS in war times today, but we are not able to provide a full coverage of the border areas at 24/7 anytime soon and only if that is possible, with additional overlapping features like aerostats and ground radars, you will get a high possibility to counter low level attack approaches.
& that is for IAF's 2 front strategy basically which includes a vastly outnumbered adversary CHINA plus well trained PAF.I am stressing about PAK border line only.
The 2 front war is not a strategy, but the worst case that IAF is trying to prepare for. Therefor they need to be able to have full AWACS coverage of both boder sides at any given time, not only at 1, which is why they estimate that they need around 15 x AWACS to do that in a propper rotation.
why do you beleive it doesnt serve security of the nation ???
Because of the low numbers! We need more aircrafts in the air to cover all areas and at the same time enough aircrafts on the ground to have a propper rotation, that's why I want more EMB DRDO AWACS as soon as possible and not waste time with a new AWACS development.
& why am i doubting becoz i dont know any recent updates about novator i have been listening about this from quite a sometime but no latest updates or news have been published about it
so thats why i am skeptical.
Exactly, just as I am skeptical about it, so why bother to argue with it, if we don't know if it's developed let alone inducted into IAF? It's a mystery and claiming we can easily take out enemy AWACS with that then doesn't make sense.
we wont be having in offensive scenario in their land
Wrong, that's even what Rafale or the coming upgrades of MKIs with long range attack capabilities are about, hittin China deep in their hinterland, be it from distance or by penetrating and the importance of that should be very obvious too, because the only way to counter their numerical superiority in the air, is to attack their airbases on the ground. The more you take out or at least damage to keep them out of operations for a certain time, the less opponents you have in the air and that includes their AWACS aircrafts.
That's even the common tactic in all wars, even against far less capable countries (Libya, Iraq, Kosovo war up to the WW's), reducing the combat capability of the enemy air force by destroying as many air bases belongs to the first attacks in a war.