Discssion: Why it is better for PAF to enter 5th Gen league now .

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Seems like Pakistani Airforce is quite keen on 5th Generation platform , it was stated various times in Air Cheif's announcements and press releases

And recently the J-31 has been shown in Chinese exhibition I think end of last year

Pak's job is to out-maneuver, which I think she has taken to an art form....

 

[ptldM3]

We are developing a radiation homing warhead for our cruise missiles to pay their S-400s a friendly visit for up to a 1000kms and just in case you forgot to get the cue it can be used to kill their ships too. God bless our new Submarines.

The S-400 is design to knock targets such as cruise missiles out at 400km away. They are also paired with other S-400s or various other air defenses such as S-300s, buks, pantsirs, ect.

It would take a lot of cruise missiles and decoys to destroy an S-400 system. The best chance a cruise missile has at destroying an air defenses system is if that missile defense system and cruise missile are in a mountainous areas where the cruise missile(s) can avoid being detected by skimming low to the ground and using the terrain as a cover.

 

[Kompromat]

SAMs don't work at max range in a battlefield environment.

The S-400 is design to knock targets such as cruise missiles out at 400km away. They are also paired with other S-400s or various other air defenses such as S-300s, buks, pantsirs, ect.

It would take a lot of cruise missiles and decoys to destroy an S-400 system. The best chance a cruise missile has at destroying an air defenses system is if that missile defense system and cruise missile are in a mountainous areas where the cruise missile(s) can avoid being detected by skimming low to the ground and using the terrain as a cover.

 

[ptldM3]

SAMs don't work at max range in a battlefield environment.

They do. The S-400 radar can see out to 600km and engage at 400km. If cruise missiles are detected at or before 400km then they can engage at those distances.

 

[Kompromat]

No they don't. SAMs aren't as effective on the battlefield as they look on the PR brochures. If this was the case, countries would stop investing in tactical airforces and instead invest in a multi layered ADN.

They do. The S-400 radar can see out to 600km and engage at 400km. If cruise missiles are detected at or before 400km then they can engage at those distances.

 

[ptldM3]

No they don't. SAMs aren't as effective on the battlefield as they look on the PR brochures. If this was the case, countries would stop investing in tactical airforces and instead invest in a multi layered ADN.

SAMs arnt effective? The majority of Israeli Aircraft shot down during Arab Israeli wars were lost to SAMs, majority of US aircraft shot down in Vietnam which total well over 3,000 aircraft were lost to SAMs, most aircraft shot down during Desert Storm were due to SAMs. Iranian Araqi war also seen many SAMs take out aircraft.

Even recently a Turkish F-4 was shot down by a Syrian SAM.

 

[Lucky Breeze]

If cruise missiles are detected at or before 400km then they can engage at those distances.

The earth is not flat. Its round. And SAMs cant hit targets below the horizon. The range of horizon is determined by this formula:

S=3.6*sqrt(h)

S - range in km, h - jets altitude in meters.

If jet is flying at 50 m then S-400 will see it only from 25 km

 

[ptldM3]

The earth is not flat. Its round. And SAMs cant hit targets below the horizon. The range of horizon is determined by this formula:

S=3.6*sqrt(h)

S - range in km, h - jets altitude in meters.

If jet is flying at 50 m then S-400 will see it only from 25 km

There are over the horizon radars and the S-400 has data links to other radars. In fact the S-400 missiles career and mobile radar are separate, meaning they don't have to be next to eachother. You are also assuming that a SAM is at sea level when it could be hundreds or thousands of feet above sea level.

 

[Lucky Breeze]

There are over the horizon radars and the S-400 has data links to other radars. In fact the S-400 missiles career and mobile radar are separate, meaning they don't have to be next to eachother. You are also assuming that a SAM is at sea level when it could be hundreds or thousands of feet above sea level.

If it is above 1000 or 5000 feet of sea level still the enemy aircraft or cruise missile can use the terrain (e.g mountains) to hit their targets. But in case of a lonely mountain in entire area may be your claim can hit.

 

[ptldM3]

If it is above 1000 or 5000 feet of sea level still the enemy aircraft or cruise missile can use the terrain (e.g mountains) to hit their targets. But in case of a lonely mountain in entire area may be your claim can hit.

Read my previous posts, I clearly mentioned that at times cruise missiles can use the terrain to hide from radars.

 

[Akasa]

There are over the horizon radars and the S-400 has data links to other radars. In fact the S-400 missiles career and mobile radar are separate, meaning they don't have to be next to eachother. You are also assuming that a SAM is at sea level when it could be hundreds or thousands of feet above sea level.

I would imagine that OTH radars won't have the resolution needed to track a low-flying, small, and highly-maneuverable target, not to mention that OTH radars require large complexes that cannot be readily moved.

It's unlikely that a SAM system of any type would be able to engage a low-altitude, terrain-hugging target at its stated maximum (slant) range precisely due to the curvature of the earth and the need to maneuver during the engagement.

 

[gambit]

The earth is not flat. Its round. And SAMs cant hit targets below the horizon. The range of horizon is determined by this formula:

S=3.6*sqrt(h)

S - range in km, h - jets altitude in meters.

If jet is flying at 50 m then S-400 will see it only from 25 km

Here you go, buddy...

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

No need to strain the brain.

 

[CriticalThought]

SAMs arnt effective? The majority of Israeli Aircraft shot down during Arab Israeli wars were lost to SAMs, majority of US aircraft shot down in Vietnam which total well over 3,000 aircraft were lost to SAMs, most aircraft shot down during Desert Storm were due to SAMs. Iranian Araqi war also seen many SAMs take out aircraft.

Even recently a Turkish F-4 was shot down by a Syrian SAM.

You missed his point completely. If you go back and read all his posts, he is saying radars aren't effective at max range. This means aircraft can deploy anti-radiation weapons from stand off distance. These have evolved significantly over years in terms of distance and accuracy. And if the weapon is a terrain hugging stealthy cruise missile, you can kiss good bye to s-400.

One more thing which posters are saying on the thread, the max range is also directly related to elevation. Yes, you can have a battery of radars, but there will always be the weakest link in the chain and that's where you start from.

 

[ptldM3]

You missed his point completely. If you go back and read all his posts, he is saying radars aren't effective at max range.

A perfect example of someone talking about something they know nothing about. Every radar has an effective range which is based on many variables such as RCS and altitude, so explain to the readers how a radar is not effective? OTH radars are one solution to seeing beyond the horizon at low altitude, datalink networks are another, in other words S-400 can gather radar data from other radars.


Besides that missil range and guidance system on the warhead is something you are completely ignoring.

This means aircraft can deploy anti-radiation weapons from stand off distance.

Name of aircraft or anti radiation missile that has a 400km standoff range. Most aircraft won't even get close enough to an S-400 to use its anti radiation missiles, which most are short ranged to begin with.

These have evolved significantly over years in terms of distance and accuracy. And if the weapon is a terrain hugging stealthy cruise missile, you can kiss good bye to s-400.

More nonsense, air defense batteries are almost always placed in areas where they are less volnerable and most effective. Even if a cruise missile is "stealthy" it does not mean it is invisible, it just means it's more difficult to track at further distances, so even using "stealthy" cruise missiles that can use terrain mapping does not guarantee it will not be shot down.


If it was as easy as you make it out to be, then thousands of aircraft would not have been shot down from SAM batteries.

One more thing which posters are saying on the thread, the max range is also directly related to elevation. Yes, you can have a battery of radars, but there will always be the weakest link in the chain and that's where you start from.

SAMs usually work in networks, with various radars. This means you have a combination of long, medium and short range SAMs, all work together to protect one another, this also makes it very difficult to jam or overwhelm.

 

[DCS]

I won't weigh in on the performance of specific systems, but air defense networks are much more survivable than commonly understood. A properly integrated air defense network is highly persistent, redundant, mobile, and resistant to saturation attacks. ARMs are not a silver bullet in such a context, and to be fair, neither is IADS against aware, maneuvering aircraft.

There are many ways to deal with ARMs, and I am surprised at how rarely decoy emitters are brought up in discourse. They are effective, inexpensive, and can be deployed in numbers. I will not even mention more obvious measures such as interception or other EW means. ARMs are essentially big ticket items for South Asian militaries, along with the platforms that carry them. South Asian air forces generally either lack the quantity of weapons and platforms, or the competency, to seriously degrade or destroy the air defenses of peer militaries. Effective SEAD is a very specialized mission set that few nations are capable of executing at large scale. Effective air defense is a much lower bar, and this has been demonstrated and time and time again.

In my view, in an Indo-Pakistani context, neither side will be able to establish air superiority in opposing airspace. Neither side has the ability to attain strategic surprise. This is generally a favorable situation for Pakistan, as even though it is militarily highly capable, it is also the smaller power. I always find it farcical when certain members insinuate that Pakistan requires outside help to defend itself. It doesn't.