Hi,
The U S does not need to fly B52's over Syria or Iraq against isis is that it does not need to---because isis presents a small and selective target that it can deal with smart bombs.
OTOH----india presents a huge big target everywhere and anywhere----you understand the difference now---.
A military conquest or a war with another nation is different than fighting against isis----. Now everything and anything is a target---big or small----.
Now---when you have an enemy 3 times the size in military----you need an aircraft that can deliver a heavy load----.
But over here---most of my emphasis on the JH7B has been for naval strike roles---on parallel with the Chinese navy-----.
The JH7B's weapons package is second to none in its class---it will get an excellent chinese aesa radar---it will get a setup for electronic jammers to be used in the growler mode----and for a true utility strike aircraft---it can also launch BVR missiles.
We have a ground launch version of babur---we have a naval version coming up and supposedly there is going to be a air launched version as well---the air launched version would have at least from 1200 Km to 1500 Km range---.
With the air launched version---the JH7B can carry 6 missiles with ease and give so much flexibility of launching from so many different points---which makes it a massive force multiplier at a minimal cost of around 25 million +-.
The thing is that just because it is big and has a big rcs does not mean that the adversary will get a lock on it just like that.
I mean to say---the designer was not stupid when they designed a large aircraft----and everybody who is fighting over RCS is basically extremely STUPID ( not meant for you because you brought out some learning points )and has no knowledge about air warfare----.
That is why---the designer created jammers---giving aircraft growler type capabilities----so that you can prowl under the shadow of your growler type aircraft-----like the JH7B is recommend to give protection to the Chinese SU30 aircraft during the mission---.
These growler capabilities would not allow a lock. You have a larger aircraft with a bigger engine producing more power that ca operate a more powerful jamming equipment---so this SU30MKI RCS mean nothing---if you cannot make a lock on it---.
That is what it is all about---who can make a lock onto the other aircraft when--how far and with what deadly results----.
RCS is just a drama for fools to argue over. It what your complimentary electronics package can do that will determine the outcome.
For F16's---I would say a number of 150---175 should be the right number---. 200---250 JF 17's or 150 JF 17's----50 J11D's and about 70 JH7B's
Pakistan cannot fight the war with 300---350 single engine aircraft---. It needs close to 500---.
The war will be decided by how many SU30's India will lose and how aircraft Pakistan has left after the first 10 days.
Lets start taking the whole argument apart again,
The U S does not need to fly B52's over Syria or Iraq against isis is that it does not need to
Clearly someone never went beyond their knowledge of airwarfare beyond that of CNN.
The US does not fly B-52s over Syria because it already has assets based in the theatre in the form of its Carrier air wings and most recently the deployment at Incrilik AFB in Turkey. At no point does the usage or non usage of smart bombs have ANYTHING to do with the deployment of B-52s. Not to mention that since 1998, the entire B-52 fleet is equipped with JDAMs which are generally considered very smart. They were the first aircraft to attack the Taliban from their base in Guam.
because isis presents a small and selective target that it can deal with smart bombs.
OTOH----india presents a huge big target everywhere and anywhere----you understand the difference now---.
A military conquest or a war with another nation is different than fighting against isis----. Now everything and anything is a target---big or small----.
What the heck does small and selective have ANYTHING to do with a bomb being smart? The CBU-105 that India has bought can cover a massive area but is one of the smartest weapons out there. There is no concept of small and selective with ISIS either. ISIS is spread out over most of Iraq and Syria, their targets range from small pickups to entire school buildings; last I checked.. that people with normal eyes can see the size difference between a small pickup and a 40 room building. These arguments may work with the hyper excited kids, not with people who actually read.
Now---when you have an enemy 3 times the size in military----you need an aircraft that can deliver a heavy load----.
But over here---most of my emphasis on the JH7B has been for naval strike roles---on parallel with the Chinese navy-----.
The JH7B's weapons package is second to none in its class---it will get an excellent chinese aesa radar---it will get a setup for electronic jammers to be used in the growler mode----and for a true utility strike aircraft---it can also launch BVR missiles.
If the Mirage-2000 was not enough, now we have another one. The JH-7B is an electronics upgrade to an aircraft that is currently in service with the PLAN whose capabilities are roughly similar to that of the Panavia Tornado.Any imagination that the Chinese fanboys have on some stealthy JH-7B came about after a tarpaulin covered aircraft showed a shape that looked like a JH-7B with angled features. Which, for people who cover their cars .
"Oh my god, that looks like the next generation of Impala with angled headlights and gull wing doors. I think it has a touchscreen system along with a hybrid powertrain that might give the Porche 998 a run for its money."
Wonder why no one finds the above funny when fanboys discuss a tarpaulin covered aircraft the same way. But then again, there were similar pablum about the Block-II as stealthy, twin tails, warp drive.. etc. At the end, the JH-7B is nothing more than the JH-7A with added A2A refuelling and improved avionics along with weight reduction.
I let out a laugh at "Second to none in its class". Its second to none except the Tornado(
which carries a wider assortment of weapons than the JH-7B ), The F-15(
Which in its latest guise has one of the best AESA radar's fitted to an aircraft along with all the BVR it needs). Not to mention that like the Tornado, the JH-7B isnt going anywhere in a turning fight, and carries the air to air capability in case it has to go in alone against US Naval interceptors when attacking a CVBG.
And as for the Jammer package, trying to compare that to the Growler is pretty far fetched. But lets assume it is for the sake of idiotic argument; how in the world is that supposed to allow it to
With the air launched version---the JH7B can carry 6 missiles with ease and give so much flexibility of launching from so many different points---which makes it a massive force multiplier at a minimal cost of around 25 million +-.
First, the cost is not 25 million +/-, are you trying to apply your career to selling these folks an aircraft? @fatman17 . The cost of the aircraft is greater than 25 million and has to include logistics costs along with training(for both pilots and maintenance).Now the aircraft does have good range because it is a 70's airframe technology much like the Jaguar but I pray as to how will it be able to attack from 6 different directions even with 2500km range.. as if the concept of mileage or in case of fighter engines "Specific fuel consumption" has been forgotten by you entirely. An aircraft sortie is not driving in straight and shooting missiles like throwing eggs out of a car. To attack the JH-7 will have to drop down from its cruise speed and altitude(these effect fuel consumption much like in cars, but MK forgot to tell all of you that) that it took to get to the target area(assuming that there is some magical RCS reduction and it was not picked up due to its huge normal RCS).Whether it drops to low or high level, it will speed up to get as close as possible to launch the missile. That means using more fuel in this run(and aircraft engines guzzle up a lot more than you think), fuel that will take away from this range it has. Lets assume that it still manages to have a lot of fuel, how exactly is it going to make attacks from 6 different directions without ever giving its position away. Its not a F-35 or F-22 and at some point some radar will pick it up and it will get caught. This is not a very fast aircraft that travels at mach 5 that it will suddenly move 300 km to attack from a totally different quadrant. Even Russian Tu-22 backfire pilots whose lives were filled with low level attacks against carriers using many more missiles knew that multiple attack vectors were not possible with long ranged interceptors and radar systems. Somehow, MK has found a way.. which he wont explain in technical details off course.
Then comes the best comment of the day.
The thing is that just because it is big and has a big rcs does not mean that the adversary will get a lock on it just like that.
I mean to say---the designer was not stupid when they designed a large aircraft----and everybody who is fighting over RCS is basically extremely STUPID ( not meant for you because you brought out some learning points )and has no knowledge about air warfare----.
That is why---the designer created jammers---giving aircraft growler type capabilities----so that you can prowl under the shadow of your growler type aircraft-----like the JH7B is recommend to give protection to the Chinese SU30 aircraft during the mission---.
These growler capabilities would not allow a lock. You have a larger aircraft with a bigger engine producing more power that ca operate a more powerful jamming equipment---so this SU30MKI RCS mean nothing---if you cannot make a lock on it---.
That is what it is all about---who can make a lock onto the other aircraft when--how far and with what deadly results---
How does radar and RCS work in conjunction with Jamming? did you explain it to them before this? Clearly you have more knowledge of this than any aircraft designer. What difference does RCS make to detection and locking on?
Ill explain because clearly the airwarfare expert just likes to take names and make it look like he knows it all.
We all hear of radar cross section and how it effects the range at which the Radar sees.In simplest terms, it effects the strength of the radar signal that you "hear" back from the target. As the aircraft RCS increases or decreases, you will hear the signals quicker or later( there is a much more comprehensive discussion on this by our member gambit, do look it up before talking to airwarfare "experts"). Now, to give a quick idea of what a radar is doing.. it is shooting out electromagnetic waves of different frequencies and looking for how the waves it shot out returned as(did their shape change? How much amplitude(power) did they lose in which area of the wave shape?)as that tells the aircraft whether there is an aircraft out there in the empty air or not. So in the end, it depends on what the aircraft receives back as much as what it sends out. This information is then translated into information such as range, speed and altitude. Like a splash in the water from a stone, the more power you use in the wave the bigger the range(splash).
However, when the aircraft is throwing its waves out there.. it is essentially "singing" and letting everyone else know that it is there(newer aircraft radars like the one in the F-22 and F-35 make their transmissions in such a way that they use less power and more manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum to achieve similar ranges in radar wave range). So the more power you use, you will also see further but the enemy will also know you are there earlier.
Now take the idea of a smaller aircraft that takes longer to show up on radar but has a less powerful radar(which also takes longer to detect) itself, versus a larger aircraft which shows up much earlier on radar and with its more powerful radar is known about even before it shows up on radar. To get a lock, each of these radars needs to be close enough to be able to create enough "information" to feed to the missile.
Now what jamming does, is that it tries to throw extra waves onto the air that the aircraft looking cant figure out which are its own waves and which are those of this extra noise. the aircraft then has difficulty sorting out the waves to try and figure information from the waves it needs for targeting such as speed and altitude.
BUT, because you are jamming.. you are still making noise(and a lot of noise)..which means you will be seen and heard. The enemy will not only know you are there, but know it much earlier than with you just coming in quietly or using your radar. Missiles like the AIM-120 and SD-10A take advantage of the jamming to actually go after that signal(making any jamming irrelevant once a missile is on the way, the SD-10B is said to have the dual mode seeker which will allow a launch at a jamming source even without a lock.. so large aircraft with powerful jamming or not, there will be a missile coming to get it regardless of lock).
This study was somewhat done in an earlier inception by the USAF and USN in a series of exercises called ACEVAL and AIMVAL
ACEVAL/AIMVAL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to evaluate the effectiveness of how smaller aircraft equipped with shorter ranged weapons would fare against larger aircraft with longer ranged weapons. The results was that the smaller force still managed to break in within the early days of the training and was having a kill ratio of 2:1. While tactics improved for the larger aircraft, it was also considered that had the smaller aircraft also carrier BVR systems.. the results would be pretty sobering At the end, it was found that situational awareness(
how much the pilot knows about what is going on) was always the deciding factor, and not radar size, or how many weapons it carried. A smaller aircraft which is able to get more information on the enemy(
from AWACS and other friendly aircraft) will have a higher chance of killing a larger aircraft with more electronics and weapons but will less awareness.
RCS is just a drama for fools to argue over. It what your complimentary electronics package can do that will determine the outcome.
The war will be decided by how many SU30's India will lose and how aircraft Pakistan has left after the first 10 days.
But since many of you have not read the MANY previous posts on this topic, you have the danger of falling for the pablum posted above without realizing the various factors that go into it. The war will not be decided by how many Su-30s are lost, it will be decided on how many failed missions the IAF has and how many it continues to have failed. Whether it loses Su-30s, Mirages or Cessna's is irrelevant. A failed mission is where the IAF is UNABLE to achieve its objectives. If it loses aircraft or not, how many aircraft the PAF loses is irrelevant to the mission at that time. What matters is the PAF being able to make sure that it can prevent the IAF from achieving its objectives with sufficient success in the first ten days.
The PAF will lose in the end if it is a prolonged war. But in any short conflict, any limited engagement.. it has a fairly good chance of preventing the IAF from achieving what it wants.
For F16's---I would say a number of 150---175 should be the right number---. 200---250 JF 17's or 150 JF 17's----50 J11D's and about 70 JH7B's
Pakistan cannot fight the war with 300---350 single engine aircraft---. It needs close to 500---.
Sure, the day you send the $10 billion you have stashed away in the Cayman Islands as remittance Im sure the PAF will get to 500 combat aircraft with their associated support structures. And after that keep sending an extra $1 billion every year so that the PAF can also maintain these extra and DIFFERENT fighters with their maintenance costs. According to all Pakistanis, we have trillions and gazillions in swiss bank accounts that can be brought home tomorrow if we want. @araz
Ive already explained that in the first post I made in this ridiculous thread. Something that you have not been intellectually honest enough to even come up with a decent reply backed with factual(and not made up references to supposed professional forums...even those references you have not provided). And instead have been shooting tangent after tangent that makes the typical vague reference to some event and links them up with another with another baseless connection to try and look like some Pir baba to the less informed who think something brilliant has been posted under the guise of "discuss more".
As usual, a total post full of non factual imagination, however, the green colour sadly( I really have to speak to webmaster about removing these colors for all except TT) makes people think that there is actual intelligence in these posts by supposed "Elite" members especially since the majority is ignorant. So in the land of blind men, the aimlessly shouting one eyed man is king.
The term "Neem Mullah, khatra Iman" comes into play.
@Dazzler, @Najam Khan , @niaz @Icarus , the gentleman wishes to remove you from TT because of you not posting similar ideas like his just so you do it regularly.
