Why MR-SAM and S-400 are Crucial to keep PAF Defensive

[Signalian]

*yawn*

ARMs. Right...

And pray tell me what kind of ARMs you have, how many, how many aircraft can you deploy simply for the sake of SEAD/DEAD? So on and so forth. All rhetorical.

Take Desert Storm. The Iraqis were completely unprepared to fight NATO. Their network was more dedicated to taking attacks from smaller forces, their fighter jets did not even put up a decent fight, and their EW capability was practically non-existent. The US still used 2000 HARMs against Iraq's smaller and outdated IADS in 1991 and in conditions of air superiority. Just one unit required nearly 2400 sorties just to fire off 1000 HARMs. Otoh, your entire air effort in 1971 was less than 3000 sorties, and you will be dealing with a massive IADS network that's incomparable to Iraq's.

So this is your idea of an intelligent conversation? You don't even know how many SAM sites are involved and how many SEAD sorties you actually need to perform before you even decimate 10% of the SAMs we are talking about. I bet you don't even know how many aircraft you have that can be dedicated to SEAD.

Do you know active decoys are very effective against ARMs? So decoys work both ways.

Simply using ARM and jamming is useless against the S-400, even other modern upcoming SAMs. And CEC makes it all the more irrelevant. Radar ranges have become so large that they overlap with their neighbouring SAM sites. And the S-400's LRSAMs will be further bolstered by DRDO's new XRSAM.

The problem with this tactic of using jamming and ARMs, jamming is considerably less effective than it used to be. Degrading a 600Km radar to 300Km when you are 100Km away is going to be useless. And SAMs have become so capable that missiles can now shoot down other missiles. So if an ARM is deemed to be dangerous, then it will simply be engaged by a QRSAM. Hell, you can say that in an high intensity environment, the SAM controllers may not even bother using anti-ARM tactics, they will simply dedicate more resources to shoot down the ARMs and the SEAD fighter instead.

PAF won't even get the chance to come close enough to actually use ARMs on the S-400. Most of what PAF uses are short range. MAR-1, LD-10 and CM-103 are all less than 100Km. And the PAF will have to first cross the IA's IADS before engaging the S-400, and the IA's network is ridiculously huge.

And as I have already pointed out, killing the S-400's radar won't particularly diminish its threat. CEC is one of its more advanced features. So some other radar can cue its missiles.

The only way to defeat India's upcoming IADS is by using quality, not quantity. Who knows when that will happen?

Anyway, if the PAF ends up dedicating more of its resources to defeat India's IADS, while the IAF jets are busy bombarding targets of greater relevance in Pakistan, then the IADS has pretty much done its job.



Of course they can. But the problem you see, fighter pods are very small. So if you really wanna see a truck on the ground and identify it, you're gonna have to fly really, really close to it. It's a different story that by the time you finish your sortie, the truck would have moved. Not to mention, you're gonna have a tough time collecting intel when you have missiles headed towards you.

Where is the technical talk?

I will begin with simple sentences so you can understand the context. The first type of jamming is Communication Link Jamming. This is normally considered to be jamming a point-to-point communication link between transmitter and receiver. Noise modulated cover jamming is also used for VHF, UHF and microwave links. All such links are used by Military forces for communication.

Now we come to radar jamming, the purpose of the radar jammer is to provide either false information (deceptive jamming) for the target or completely prevent the radar from detecting the target (cover jamming). One more thing, deceptive jamming can be used in a communication link also.

Then there is Self-protection jamming, In this case the target is equipped with the jammer, and the radar system can not detect the target or gets false information for the actual position of the target. Another type is Stand-Off jamming, This is a jammer on a different platform, which is used to transmit a signal to prevent the detection of another platform.

Coming to decoys, starting with Expendable decoys, these decoys are ejected from the platform and operate in a very short period of time. I am sure you know the example of this one. Second is towed decoys, a towed decoy is attached to the platform by a cable which can be controlled or retracted. They can operate for a long period of time. Another type is, Independent manoeuvre decoys, they are deployed from a platform, are independently propelled and have complete flexibility of motion.
The Passive and Active decoys; Passive decoys are normally made from material which can reflect incoming radar
signals. Their RCS is generally high or specifically designed to match the RCS of the target (an aircraft). Corner reflectors are typically used as a passive decoy, and are deployed on different platforms. I am sure you know what corner reflectors are.
Active decoys are different, If a small decoy is required to produce a high RCS, active elements such as an amplifier can be incorporated in the decoys. In its simplest form, two antennas and an amplifier can be utilized for the active decoys.

Since you have been rambling on and about saturation attacks, lets start with Saturation Decoys; A saturation mission is when a large number of decoys are used to saturate the radar. Most radar systems have a limited time slot to detect the target, and also a limited number of targets they can detect at a given time. Saturation decoys can be passive or active and should provide a similar RCS to the target. Other characteristics of the target such as jet engine modulation, signal modulation and motion need to be considered. e.g. chaff bursts are used to protect aircrafts from missiles.

Another decoy type is Detectable decoy; The aim of a detectable decoy is to cause the radar system to detect the decoy rather the real target. Once the decoy is detected by the acquisition radar it is handed over to the tracking radar.
An interesting decoy is Seduction decoy; A seduction decoy causes the tracking radar to change its tracking from the target to the decoy. In a simple terms, it breaks the radar’s lock on the target (seduce the radar). In a seduction mission, it is important that the RCS of decoy is much higher than the target (passive or active decoy).
It should produce a return signal similar to target such as jet engine modulation, or the size and shape of the target.

A little bit about "burn through Range" to talk on technical parameters. Burn-through range, is the distance which
a radar can detect the signal and can operate/track successfully for a given power level of the received signal from the target.

So far i have explained some terms i used in my previous post; lets come to the technical part now.

Since you have shown in your post that you know about PAF's arsenal of aircraft and ARM's, lets go with a capable aircraft that can have a jamming pod installed on it, you can choose the aircraft type but I will give it a higher RCS and lower jamming capability in my question to make it easy for you.

1. F-16 Block 52+ with DRFM
2. F-16 Block 15 MLU with AN/ALQ-211(V)9 pod Or ALQ-131 pod
3. JF-17 with KG300G or Aseslan Pod
4. Falcon D-20 with EW pods.

PAF has ALQ-184 and ALQ-213 pods for F-16's also. If hard points allow, they maybe installed. Forget ARM for now.

Technical Question S-400 vs PAF

A S-400 radar system has been used to detect a PAF aircraft which carries self-protection jamming capability. The aircraft’s jammer power is 50 dBm into a 10 dBi antenna. Supposing that S400 radar has a 1kW transmitter and a 30 dBi antenna. The aircraft(non stealthy as in case of PAF) radar cross section is 10 m2(meter square).

Determine the Burn-through range for Jamming to Signal ratio of 10 dB, which is sufficient to block the S-400 radar.

Since you know about S-400 radar and its mechanisms you can assume the bandwidth of the jamming signal is equal to or greater than the desired signal’s bandwidth.

The Answer which you will give will determine the distance that aircraft can protect itself if it is greater than the (distance you calculated) from this radar. If the aircraft distance is shorter than (the distance you calculated) from the radar, the aircraft will be detected.

The Range will obviously be in Km's or scale it down to meters if you want.

Good Luck.

PS: Please DO NOT quote me 10 year old kid's strategies again which have already been discussed to death on this forum, Calculate the range and then quote me otherwise you are wasting your time and my time. Be productive now.

 

[Sheepistanis]

Because I doubt amount of Pakistan fighting resources for a saturation attack

Your personal doubts don't count, unless you have got credible information to back them.

 

[Signalian]

@tps77 since you have interest in radars, would you also like to have a go at question in post 46.

 

[Tps43]

@tps77 since you have interest in radars, would you also like to have a go at question in post 46.

Ofcourse .
I read ur post and I have no objection on it however wrt Paf I would like to add some open rss info.
1) Paf has a very well networked AD system which our enemies can even dream that we can have that . Though some of our sensors are old but they are well reliable.
2) This is for all laymen , I will give u exanple of latest sensor which paf have and that is tps77. Tps77 have 33 transmitters and receivers . Is it logically possible to block all those?
3) During any scanning or GCI an ops controller is fully practiced to spot between org target and decoy If I am not wrong there are many ways to play blinders on bogey but I cant disclose those as they are not open sourced.
4) In paf every HLR have local supp of LLR and they operate in sync .
5) We can see su 30mki taking off from jaslmir while sitting in our cozzy area that speaks our capability .
6) We have local groundstations of all awacs in all corners of pakistan.

 

[randomradio]

Where is the technical talk?

I will begin with simple sentences so you can understand the context. The first type of jamming is Communication Link Jamming. This is normally considered to be jamming a point-to-point communication link between transmitter and receiver. Noise modulated cover jamming is also used for VHF, UHF and microwave links. All such links are used by Military forces for communication.

Now we come to radar jamming, the purpose of the radar jammer is to provide either false information (deceptive jamming) for the target or completely prevent the radar from detecting the target (cover jamming). One more thing, deceptive jamming can be used in a communication link also.

Then there is Self-protection jamming, In this case the target is equipped with the jammer, and the radar system can not detect the target or gets false information for the actual position of the target. Another type is Stand-Off jamming, This is a jammer on a different platform, which is used to transmit a signal to prevent the detection of another platform.

Coming to decoys, starting with Expendable decoys, these decoys are ejected from the platform and operate in a very short period of time. I am sure you know the example of this one. Second is towed decoys, a towed decoy is attached to the platform by a cable which can be controlled or retracted. They can operate for a long period of time. Another type is, Independent manoeuvre decoys, they are deployed from a platform, are independently propelled and have complete flexibility of motion.
The Passive and Active decoys; Passive decoys are normally made from material which can reflect incoming radar
signals. Their RCS is generally high or specifically designed to match the RCS of the target (an aircraft). Corner reflectors are typically used as a passive decoy, and are deployed on different platforms. I am sure you know what corner reflectors are.
Active decoys are different, If a small decoy is required to produce a high RCS, active elements such as an amplifier can be incorporated in the decoys. In its simplest form, two antennas and an amplifier can be utilized for the active decoys.

Since you have been rambling on and about saturation attacks, lets start with Saturation Decoys; A saturation mission is when a large number of decoys are used to saturate the radar. Most radar systems have a limited time slot to detect the target, and also a limited number of targets they can detect at a given time. Saturation decoys can be passive or active and should provide a similar RCS to the target. Other characteristics of the target such as jet engine modulation, signal modulation and motion need to be considered. e.g. chaff bursts are used to protect aircrafts from missiles.

Another decoy type is Detectable decoy; The aim of a detectable decoy is to cause the radar system to detect the decoy rather the real target. Once the decoy is detected by the acquisition radar it is handed over to the tracking radar.
An interesting decoy is Seduction decoy; A seduction decoy causes the tracking radar to change its tracking from the target to the decoy. In a simple terms, it breaks the radar’s lock on the target (seduce the radar). In a seduction mission, it is important that the RCS of decoy is much higher than the target (passive or active decoy).
It should produce a return signal similar to target such as jet engine modulation, or the size and shape of the target.

A little bit about "burn through Range" to talk on technical parameters. Burn-through range, is the distance which
a radar can detect the signal and can operate/track successfully for a given power level of the received signal from the target.

So far i have explained some terms i used in my previous post; lets come to the technical part now.

Since you have shown in your post that you know about PAF's arsenal of aircraft and ARM's, lets go with a capable aircraft that can have a jamming pod installed on it, you can choose the aircraft type but I will give it a higher RCS and lower jamming capability in my question to make it easy for you.

1. F-16 Block 52+ with DRFM
2. F-16 Block 15 MLU with AN/ALQ-211(V)9 pod Or ALQ-131 pod
3. JF-17 with KG300G or Aseslan Pod
4. Falcon D-20 with EW pods.

PAF has ALQ-184 and ALQ-213 pods for F-16's also. If hard points allow, they maybe installed. Forget ARM for now.

This is a completely useless wall of text.

Technical Question S-400 vs PAF

A S-400 radar system has been used to detect a PAF aircraft which carries self-protection jamming capability. The aircraft’s jammer power is 50 dBm into a 10 dBi antenna. Supposing that S400 radar has a 1kW transmitter and a 30 dBi antenna. The aircraft(non stealthy as in case of PAF) radar cross section is 10 m2(meter square).

Determine the Burn-through range for Jamming to Signal ratio of 10 dB, which is sufficient to block the S-400 radar.

Since you know about S-400 radar and its mechanisms you can assume the bandwidth of the jamming signal is equal to or greater than the desired signal’s bandwidth.

The Answer which you will give will determine the distance that aircraft can protect itself if it is greater than the (distance you calculated) from this radar. If the aircraft distance is shorter than (the distance you calculated) from the radar, the aircraft will be detected.

The Range will obviously be in Km's or scale it down to meters if you want.

Good Luck.

Let's break it down.
Pj = 50dBm
Gj = 10 dBi
Pr = 1KW = 60dBm
Gr = 30dBi
RCS = 10m2 = 10dBsm
J/S = 10dB
10log4pi = 10.99dB = 11dB
D = ?

20logD = 10log(J/S - Pj - Gj + Pr + Gr + RCS - 4pi)
20log D = 39
log D = 1.95
D = 90m

Although it's pretty pointless. Paper jamming isn't the same as real jamming. The radar's receiver will simply dismiss the jamming signal early on. The SNR in the receiver will continue to remain very large. And most of the times, the jammers will not have reference signals to work on anyway. Stuff like DRFM works only if you have something to sample and compare against.

 

[Signalian]

This is a completely useless wall of text.



Let's break it down.
Pj = 50dBm
Gj = 10 dBi
Pr = 1KW = 60dBm
Gr = 30dBi
RCS = 10m2 = 10dBsm
J/S = 10dB
10log4pi = 10.99dB = 11dB
D = ?

20logD = 10log(J/S - Pj - Gj + Pr + Gr + RCS - 4pi)
20log D = 39
log D = 1.95
D = 90m

Although it's pretty pointless. Paper jamming isn't the same as real jamming. The radar's receiver will simply dismiss the jamming signal early on. The SNR in the receiver will continue to remain very large. And most of the times, the jammers will not have reference signals to work on anyway. Stuff like DRFM works only if you have something to sample and compare against.

No, you still haven't got it.

The answer you got means that the aircraft will reach on top of the radar and probably drop the bomb, doesn't even need an ARM. Which shows jamming has better chances against radar than the radar detecting it.

A longer range is desired by the radar to detect the aircraft at a suitable range, remember this is non-stealthy, so this cannot just be achieved by increasing the transmitting power of the radar.

and secondly, whats useless text for you is the basis for Counter measures and EW in aviation.​

 

[randomradio]

No, you still haven't got it.

The answer you got means that the aircraft will reach on top of the radar and probably drop the bomb, doesn't even need an ARM. Which shows jamming has better chances against radar than the radar detecting it.

A longer range is desired by the radar to detect the aircraft at a suitable range, remember this is non-stealthy, so this cannot just be achieved by increasing the transmitting power of the radar.

That's the problem. You think a small jammer is going to clog up the S-400's arteries. That's really far away from the truth. During war, you will be lucky to even recognise the frequencies of the S-400 radar among its many decoys.

The S-400 has been designed in such a way that even if you successfully manage to jam one radar, which is already very difficult, you will still be the proud recipient of a missile or two at the same time. It's because of overlap, the presence of other radars in the system, and CEC. CEC = Data from an aerostat or AWACS can also send targeting information to the S-400 battery. Even the Su-30MKI.

Forget jam, even if you destroy all the radars in a S-400 battery, you can still be attacked.

Just look at the coverage.

IAF's S-400 in red. IA's MRSAM in blue and QRSAM in black, protecting 3 IBGs that have marginally pushed into Pakistan. The green is the SPYDER-MR. The yellow is AWACS/aerostat coverage.

Where are you going to attack the S-400 from?

If you literally take just one firing unit with 4 launchers each for each of the SAM sites, you will get 8 FCRs and 4 acquisition radars in total, apart from 1 AWACS/aerostat. Even after considering such a simplified network, what are you going to jam? Even the smaller SAM sites are going to have their own decoys.

And to get over the S-400's radar, you will have to cross at least 5 other SAM sites just to get to it. In reality, it sure as hell is going to be way more than 5 SAM sites. 1 SAM site = multiple radars, multiple firing units, not just 1 radar and 1 firing unit. For example, one QRSAM battery alone has 4 FCRs.

Even the Israeli EL/M 2084 connected to the MRSAM and SPYDER-MR batteries will be able to provide targeting information to the S-400's missiles. The Israelis have purpose designed their C&C to work with any SAM. That includes even Akash and the upcoming XRSAM.

Also, the problem with jamming is you know the location of the jamming source as well. You can expect our fighter jets to pounce on the SEAD aircraft even before it is able to become useful.

In the end, all you're doing is dodging SAMs and then dodging AAMs, while any ARMs you have fired have already been intercepted while you are trying to turn tail and run away.

and secondly, whats useless text for you is the basis for Counter measures and EW in aviation.​

It's just a wall of text, like a Wikipeda page. It doesn't really say anything that needs to be posted here.

 

[Signalian]

That's the problem. You think a small jammer is going to clog up the S-400's arteries. That's really far away from the truth. During war, you will be lucky to even recognise the frequencies of the S-400 radar among its many decoys.

The S-400 has been designed in such a way that even if you successfully manage to jam one radar, which is already very difficult, you will still be the proud recipient of a missile or two at the same time. It's because of overlap, the presence of other radars in the system, and CEC. CEC = Data from an aerostat or AWACS can also send targeting information to the S-400 battery. Even the Su-30MKI.

Forget jam, even if you destroy all the radars in a S-400 battery, you can still be attacked.

Just look at the coverage.

IAF's S-400 in red. IA's MRSAM in blue and QRSAM in black, protecting 3 IBGs that have marginally pushed into Pakistan. The green is the SPYDER-MR. The yellow is AWACS/aerostat coverage.

Where are you going to attack the S-400 from?

If you literally take just one firing unit with 4 launchers each for each of the SAM sites, you will get 8 FCRs and 4 acquisition radars in total, apart from 1 AWACS/aerostat. Even after considering such a simplified network, what are you going to jam? Even the smaller SAM sites are going to have their own decoys.

And to get over the S-400's radar, you will have to cross at least 5 other SAM sites just to get to it. In reality, it sure as hell is going to be way more than 5 SAM sites. 1 SAM site = multiple radars, multiple firing units, not just 1 radar and 1 firing unit. For example, one QRSAM battery alone has 4 FCRs.

Even the Israeli EL/M 2084 connected to the MRSAM and SPYDER-MR batteries will be able to provide targeting information to the S-400's missiles. The Israelis have purpose designed their C&C to work with any SAM. That includes even Akash and the upcoming XRSAM.

Also, the problem with jamming is you know the location of the jamming source as well. You can expect our fighter jets to pounce on the SEAD aircraft even before it is able to become useful.

In the end, all you're doing is dodging SAMs and then dodging AAMs, while any ARMs you have fired have already been intercepted while you are trying to turn tail and run away.



It's just a wall of text, like a Wikipeda page. It doesn't really say anything that needs to be posted here.

You know why i cant take any of your argument seriously ?

Lets start with the question i gave you to solve. The answer is there in one look, that is , if you know ANYTHING about radars. However, its evident you dont know anything about radars, Jamming, ECM, EW and the related kind.

Hint 1:
I gave you very small powers of both transmitters, with one look you could have easily said that due to low power levels of transmitters, the range will be less than 500 meters.

Hint 2:
The difference in power levels of transmitters was very small, which clearly shows that aircraft will come close to the radar and it would be too late to be detected.

Hint 3:
I clearly mentioned that leave ARM aside for now. Its a big hint i gave you before i put the question.

I gave you everything and on a plate.and what do you do?
You go to somebody and ask them to solve the equation for you for face-saving on PDF! how do i know you went to somebody and asked them to solve it for you? because the question did not need to be solved. The answer was written everywhere in the question. I tried to make it as easy as possible for you thinking you might know a thing or two about radars and that my perception that your only knowledge comes from reading manual is probably wrong. But you know what, you proved me right. You know nothing about radars.

what do you do next? the very first statement in your post is about the uselessness of a wall of knowledge. tell me something, a person who just tried to solved a question based on the theory of concepts (which i posted) needed to solve that questions comes back and says that theory was useless, lol buddy, you don't fool me in any way. A person who knew how to solve that question, even using the equation you posted, KNOWS, the basis of equation is from the theory which i posted before the question. The Jamming to signal ratio (J/S) comes exacyly from that very "wall of text".

You know you remind me of those students who may know how to get marks by cramming, but they have no damn idea about the concept that's being taught to them. That so called wall of text is what made the equation, the equation you got from a friend.
You disregard theory but you write an equation derived from same theory! You are only fooling yourself!

Lastly, you start commenting about paper vs practical, the SNR and the DRFM.
You just put up an equation and tried a solution, instead of telling me about paper vs practical, if you really wanted to talk of reality you would be telling me the factors which in that equation can be used to get a good enough Range (distance) for the radar from the target with a 10m2 target.
The SNR will not affect, you know why? Let me tell you before you run off to your equation solving friend to get a answer or even if he told you this he told you wrong. SNR will not remain large and the SNR is not effected because the transmitter power is too low in both cases, the radar and the jammer. Secondly, the clutter affects SNR, i did not even mention cutter effects. Thirdly, the main radar main beamwdith, the pulse width and other factors affect range. In order to increase range, those factors can be played with, not SNR.
As for DRFM, you are a manual guy, open the manual about DRFM and read it.

And it becomes laughable for me when you write such long posts having no knowledge of what you are talking about. You don't fool me atleast, you can try your best making a fool out of everybody else.

Had you really solved the question with an iota of some concept and told me the range by just looking at the parameters i gave you, i would have gone forward, step by step and then solved and discussed:
1. Decoys and its operation against radars. using a question again and then discussing its solution with you, through concepts obviously.
2. Discussed clutter and its types, using clutter equation and then what factors we need to change to get maximum range.
3. and finally from our discussions and technical concepts for S-400, using the parameters of S-400 and its connected radars and we could have made a realistic scenario against PAF eventually. This is why i made everything easy for you from the start so we move on speedily towards this.

But you can go and read manuals about pods and radars and copy paste plots and ranges, knowing nothing whats happening in reality. I really have wasted my time with you. I would just be happy if somebody else picks up a thing or two about radars and what i have tried to explain in my posts in this thread.

 

[randomradio]

You know why i cant take any of your argument seriously ?

Lets start with the question i gave you to solve. The answer is there in one look, that is , if you know ANYTHING about radars. However, its evident you dont know anything about radars, Jamming, ECM, EW and the related kind.

Hint 1:
I gave you very small powers of both transmitters, with one look you could have easily said that due to low power levels of transmitters, the range will be less than 500 meters.

Hint 2:
The difference in power levels of transmitters was very small, which clearly shows that aircraft will come close to the radar and it would be too late to be detected.

Hint 3:
I clearly mentioned that leave ARM aside for now. Its a big hint i gave you before i put the question.

I gave you everything and on a plate.and what do you do?
You go to somebody and ask them to solve the equation for you for face-saving on PDF! how do i know you went to somebody and asked them to solve it for you? because the question did not need to be solved. The answer was written everywhere in the question. I tried to make it as easy as possible for you thinking you might know a thing or two about radars and that my perception that your only knowledge comes from reading manual is probably wrong. But you know what, you proved me right. You know nothing about radars.

what do you do next? the very first statement in your post is about the uselessness of a wall of knowledge. tell me something, a person who just tried to solved a question based on the theory of concepts (which i posted) needed to solve that questions comes back and says that theory was useless, lol buddy, you don't fool me in any way. A person who knew how to solve that question, even using the equation you posted, KNOWS, the basis of equation is from the theory which i posted before the question. The Jamming to signal ratio (J/S) comes exacyly from that very "wall of text".

You know you remind me of those students who may know how to get marks by cramming, but they have no damn idea about the concept that's being taught to them. That so called wall of text is what made the equation, the equation you got from a friend.
You disregard theory but you write an equation derived from same theory! You are only fooling yourself!

Lastly, you start commenting about paper vs practical, the SNR and the DRFM.
You just put up an equation and tried a solution, instead of telling me about paper vs practical, if you really wanted to talk of reality you would be telling me the factors which in that equation can be used to get a good enough Range (distance) for the radar from the target with a 10m2 target.
The SNR will not affect, you know why? Let me tell you before you run off to your equation solving friend to get a answer or even if he told you this he told you wrong. SNR will not remain large and the SNR is not effected because the transmitter power is too low in both cases, the radar and the jammer. Secondly, the clutter affects SNR, i did not even mention cutter effects. Thirdly, the main radar main beamwdith, the pulse width and other factors affect range. In order to increase range, those factors can be played with, not SNR.
As for DRFM, you are a manual guy, open the manual about DRFM and read it.

And it becomes laughable for me when you write such long posts having no knowledge of what you are talking about. You don't fool me atleast, you can try your best making a fool out of everybody else.

Had you really solved the question with an iota of some concept and told me the range by just looking at the parameters i gave you, i would have gone forward, step by step and then solved and discussed:
1. Decoys and its operation against radars. using a question again and then discussing its solution with you, through concepts obviously.
2. Discussed clutter and its types, using clutter equation and then what factors we need to change to get maximum range.
3. and finally from our discussions and technical concepts for S-400, using the parameters of S-400 and its connected radars and we could have made a realistic scenario against PAF eventually. This is why i made everything easy for you from the start so we move on speedily towards this.

But you can go and read manuals about pods and radars and copy paste plots and ranges, knowing nothing whats happening in reality. I really have wasted my time with you. I would just be happy if somebody else picks up a thing or two about radars and what i have tried to explain in my posts in this thread.

You are a funny guy. First, I solved the equation myself. It's just the ratio between two Friss transmission formulas for a jamming signal and the radar signal. This is undergrad level math taught in engineering.

Second, you claim that jamming is so good that radars are generally useless. This is something even the Americans don't claim, neither do the French, nor do the Chinese. Hell, nobody claims this. What you are basically saying is you don't need stealth at all, since one jamming pod will get you and all your friends inside the SAM network. I knew the discussion will come down to you dismissing radars as a whole. But you have the right idea. The only way to defeat our IADS is to make our radars wholly obsolete. Sad to say even the Americans are not up to the task.

Lastly, you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Do you even know how long it takes to recreate jamming signals, especially signals you have never seen before? The Israelis got slaughtered by SAMs during Yom Kippur, and the Egyptians were using relatively modern SAMs at the time. The Israelis needed a full generation gap versus outdated SAMs to defeat the same Syrian defences a decade later.

Let's see what the Americans have to say about it:
========================================
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/most-important-technology-f-35/125228/
“In the past, what would happen is you’d send out your EA-18,” the military’s top-of-the-line EW aircraft, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said last month in an event at the Center for New American Security. “It would find a new waveform. There was no way for us to do anything about it. The pilot would come back, they would talk about it, they’d replicate it, they’d emulate it. It would go into the ‘ gonculator ,’ goncu-goncu-goncu-gonculatoring, and then you would have something, and then maybe some time down the road, you would have a response.”

That process is far too slow to be effective against digitally programmable radars. “The software [to defeat new waveforms] may take on the order of months or years, but the effectiveness needs to programed within hours or seconds. If it’s an interaction with a radar and a jammer, for example, sometime it’s a microsecond,” said Robert Stein, who co-chaired the Defense Science Board study.
========================================

Do you see the problem?

No?

They explain more:
========================================
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...ns-plan-defeat-russian-chinese-radar-ai-15357
Current generation aircraft—including the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35—have a preprogrammed databank of enemy radar signals and jamming profiles stored in a threat library. But if those warplanes encounter a signal that has not previously been encountered, the system registers the threat as unknown—which means the aircraft is vulnerable to that threat.

“Today, when out aircraft go out on their missions, they’re loaded up with a set of jamming profiles—these are specific frequencies and waveforms that they can transmit in order to jam and disrupt an adversaries’ radar to protect themselves,” Prabhakar said. “Sometimes when they go out today, they encounter a new kind of frequency or different waveform—one that they’re not programmed for, that’s not in their library, and in a time of conflict, that would leave them exposed.”

During peacetime, the Pentagon usually deploys a signals intelligence aircraft like the RC-135V/W Rivet Joint to collect data on a new waveform. That data is then sent to a laboratory to be analyzed so that a new jamming profile can be created. Those new jamming profiles are then incorporated into a jet’s— F-22, F-35, F/A-18 or any other fighter—operational flight program updates. “Eventually, months—sometimes years—later our aircraft finally get the protection that they need against this new kind of radar signal,” Prabhakar said.

In the years prior to the digital revolution when radar waveforms were rarely altered, that slow process might have been adequate. In the current era where a new waveform can be created very quickly with minor software tweaks, the current process leaves American forces vulnerable. “That slow moving world is now gone,” Prabhakar said. “It’s not that hard to modify a radar system today. If you think about, the same technologies that have brought communications and the Internet to billions of people around the world, those are the same technologies that people are now using to modify radars.”
========================================

What this means is even today the Americans do not have the technology to defeat signals that they have never seen before in real time.

You can be guaranteed that PAF will also encounter a whole library of signals they have never seen before during wartime.

Rest assured, if you are able to defeat all radars purely with EW techniques, then you do not need stealth at all. Do you still not see the futility of your claims?

So when you throw around terms like DRFM without actually understanding how it's done, it questions your credibility. And considering your entire country has practically zero knowledge in this field, it becomes realistic to believe that you do not know what you are talking about. The fact that you threw around the names of largely obsolete types of ECM systems shows that you are still living in the 80s.

The only way to get around this to a certain extent is to manually try jamming the signal.
========================================
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...ns-plan-defeat-russian-chinese-radar-ai-15357
Right now, the only U.S. combat aircraft that have some capacity to analyze enemy waveforms in real time are the Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler—which is still serving with the Marines—and the Navy’s Boeing EA-18G Growler. While both the Growler and Prowler have pre-programmed onboard threat libraries, both jets carry electronic warfare officers (EWO ). Those EWOs can recognize and analyze the unknown enemy waveforms and—based on their experience—figure out a way to jam them in real time to an extent. However, it’s far from perfect because it relies purely on the skills of an individual EWO.
========================================

As mentioned in the last line, it's not guaranteed capability. And it's not even close to being perfect. The amount of time and resources needed is considerable, and by then, since the missile ranges are massive, you will be saying hello to a SAM or two.

In India's case, your recce aircraft are forced to operate from far away due to the presence of the S-400, which means you have no idea where ours SAMs are located in the first place. Then you will encounter signals you have no real way of defeating using DRFM. Defeating the radars manually is impossible because it is only an individual effort. One man, no matter what sort of a genius he is, will be completely overwhelmed by the massive overlap of radars in the battlefield. He won't be able to handle even two radars, let alone two dozen. Hell, due to failure of intelligence, he wouldn't even know if he's jamming the SPYDER's radar or the S-400's, or an active decoy.

This is what Tps77 said in a previous post:
Tps77 have 33 transmitters and receivers . Is it logically possible to block all those?

At least there is someone in Pakistan who uses his brain.

In conclusion:
1. Barrage jamming is useless against advanced radars.
2. DRFM is useless if you do not have relevant signals in your threat library, which will be guaranteed to be the case.
3. You can't jam our comm systems since most of it is underground and/or directional.
4. Chaff, seduction jammers, unmanned decoys etc are useless when we have long range EO sensors.
5. Without the ability to find SAMs, manual jamming is useless.
6. Too many advanced fighter aircraft patrolling the air over an almost invincible IADS to allow you the ability of using the mobility of your own fighter jets.