Didn't they massacre lots of teammates during a Red Flag exercise?
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
They massacred a lot of teammates in real combat.
I'd generally say never assume your enemy is terrible. If you push based on stuff like that, it's not that different than "they will welcome us as liberators!" It's a valid move if you are being aggressive (i.e, risk tolerant), but relative quality of PLAAF vs InAF is indefinite and clouded by bullshit from both sides.
If you are being conservative, however, you assume game theoretical perfect play (or perfect operation) from your opponent, and beat your opponent even if they're highly competent. That minimizes the risks from basing military action on subjective factors.
Better to overkill incompetence than to be unpleasantly surprised by enemy competence and lose.
Brumby
Major
The IAF to my knowledge was not happy with the R-77 performance coming off the Feb 2019 incident as its range was limited to 80 kms and was outranged by the AIM-120. Subsequently it placed additional orders for the more advanced R-77-1 which has a range of 110 kms.
I agree with you that the 'EA" variant is not consistent with my understanding of the IAF inventory.
Also, strategically, the Chinese seem to be aiming at the dollar, Foreign Affairs just put out an article about the end of American political hegemony, and we have Stephen Roach calling a dollar collapse between 2021 and 2022.
This, incidentally, will drop the F-35A from its current unit price of 80 million a pop to 52 million a pop. So, large scale J-20 purchases or imports of Su-57 seem to be a given for China.
Likewise, arguments for why the PLAAF should bring J-20s onto the border is a question of risk control. The Rafales may or may not be able to score kills against J-20s, but Su-30MKIs, with relatively antiquated electronic warfare and radar technology, are unlikely to be able to touch the J-20.
If the Rafale contain a chance of embarrassing the PLAAF with a J-20 shootdown, the Su-30MKIs, likely, also contain a chance of shooting down J-10s and J-11s carrying the PL-15 package. But while the Rafale might be able to score kills on the J-20, the Su-30MKI has almost no chance of doing so.
There's also a chance of F-35 intervention; a USN carrier moored at Kolkata would be about 1700 km away from the combat theater. The F-35C is claimed to have a combat radius of 2200 km. The J-11s and J-10s would be outmatched by the F-35s, but the J-20s could put up a decent fight.
===
As I've mentioned on the J-20 thread, the advantage of fighters over missiles is that fighters are extremely mobile; they can do transportation with missiles and fuel tanks to the combat theater, then be maintained and have pilots flown in prepared to fight them.
This, incidentally, will drop the F-35A from its current unit price of 80 million a pop to 52 million a pop. So, large scale J-20 purchases or imports of Su-57 seem to be a given for China.
Likewise, arguments for why the PLAAF should bring J-20s onto the border is a question of risk control. The Rafales may or may not be able to score kills against J-20s, but Su-30MKIs, with relatively antiquated electronic warfare and radar technology, are unlikely to be able to touch the J-20.
If the Rafale contain a chance of embarrassing the PLAAF with a J-20 shootdown, the Su-30MKIs, likely, also contain a chance of shooting down J-10s and J-11s carrying the PL-15 package. But while the Rafale might be able to score kills on the J-20, the Su-30MKI has almost no chance of doing so.
There's also a chance of F-35 intervention; a USN carrier moored at Kolkata would be about 1700 km away from the combat theater. The F-35C is claimed to have a combat radius of 2200 km. The J-11s and J-10s would be outmatched by the F-35s, but the J-20s could put up a decent fight.
===
As I've mentioned on the J-20 thread, the advantage of fighters over missiles is that fighters are extremely mobile; they can do transportation with missiles and fuel tanks to the combat theater, then be maintained and have pilots flown in prepared to fight them.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
I am beginning to think that you are either confused or you don’t understand the topic under discussion.
You like to adopt the term NEZ but then self-contradict its meaning with your 11G turn argument. NEZ by definition means it is a zone within which the target cannot outrun or out maneuver the missile because of the missile’s resident kinetic energy. Either it is in the zone or it is not – you need to make up your mind.
WEZ in its application is not a static number but dynamic due to the many variables that can impact it at point of engagement as I had explained to you more than once. The HUD actually displaces whether the target is within the WEZ based on the many variables that become an input to the algorithm.
The obvious point being the intended engagement with maximal success is between RMAX2 and RMIN2. This is a separate conversation from that of missile range. It is also depended on whether you can secure an actual lock on due to counter measures.
Presented in another way, maximum range means lower chance of successful engagement.
In an actual engagement, the dynamics will invariably be that the target will maneuver and will apply counter measures. The longer the engagement distance the greater the advantage is to the target because there is more time to act and distance favors the jammer over the acquisition radar – that is just physics.
The radar skin return power increases as the fourth power of reducing range while the received jammer power increases only as the square of reducing range.
The main problem is that you need to get over the ECM hurdle before any of these become meaningful.
I have no idea how you derived the numbers that you quoted and until you can substantiate them it is a non-conversation.
In discussing long range engagements, you need to appreciate that missile intercept algorithms are based on some form of intercept rules and not pursuit guidance as most seem to think. The data points need to be up updated frequently especially against fast maneuvering targets. With AIM-120, the datalink update is between 0.5 to 1 sec intervals. The notion of fire and forget is just wishful thinking.
Additionally, the flight path is not governed by straight line efficiency in range but rather efficiency through air density and gravity. This means a lofted flight profile to coast in low density air. That translate to lots of datalink updates to achieve intercept against a fast moving target.
I have to say that you are being sloppy. You referenced a 140 page document that I have to wade through to only find your quote close to midway on page 57.
The problem from the contents of the magazine is that ether you do not understand the subject or you are being disingenuous.
We were discussing the range of active seeker. The Astra seeker that you quoted is a passive one. In case you don’t understand the difference, active seekers involve two-way travel of RF energy. Passive seeker like ESM just receive only i.e. one way.
Last edited:
@Brumby
Does Ctrl+F not work on your computer?
Where the hell does it say it's a passive one? Autonomous homing -> homing on its own. The phrase ARH refers to active homing, and we see the pleonasm "ARH [Active Radar Homing] homing" immediately afterwards.
===
Other thing I'd point out is that you're deliberately choosing not to understand what I'm saying and introducing excess information as an attempt to show off your knowledge / credibility.
The entire damn point is that as a rule of thumb, NEZ is estimated as 33% of maximum range. You are putting words in my mouth if you are attempting to say that NEZ is 33% of range, as opposed to estimated as 33% of maximum range by observers without better information. Of course the bloody missile has a precise NEZ vs a specific aerial target with a given EM curve and energy state! But do either you or I have the physics testing results of the PL-15 and the R-77 / Astra? We don't, so we're stuck with estimates and approximations.
===
Rereading the adjuncts, I think the difference in our thinking is that amateurs typically consider a NEZ as measured in KM, when in reality it's measured in km^3. It's correct that in actual, technical practice, the NEZ is going to be a volume as opposed to a scalar, but there are too many variables. Consider, for instance, that people keep on quoting ITRs and STRs of specific planes. In reality, what's applicable isn't an ITR or STR, but rather an EM-diagram that shows both maximum sustained turn rate and maximum ITR The maximum STR / ITR is really only applicable to a specific flight regime, but it gives us an idea of what the properties of the aircraft is. And that's my use of effective range as opposed to NEZ here.
Does Ctrl+F not work on your computer?
Where the hell does it say it's a passive one? Autonomous homing -> homing on its own. The phrase ARH refers to active homing, and we see the pleonasm "ARH [Active Radar Homing] homing" immediately afterwards.
===
Other thing I'd point out is that you're deliberately choosing not to understand what I'm saying and introducing excess information as an attempt to show off your knowledge / credibility.
The entire damn point is that as a rule of thumb, NEZ is estimated as 33% of maximum range. You are putting words in my mouth if you are attempting to say that NEZ is 33% of range, as opposed to estimated as 33% of maximum range by observers without better information. Of course the bloody missile has a precise NEZ vs a specific aerial target with a given EM curve and energy state! But do either you or I have the physics testing results of the PL-15 and the R-77 / Astra? We don't, so we're stuck with estimates and approximations.
===
Rereading the adjuncts, I think the difference in our thinking is that amateurs typically consider a NEZ as measured in KM, when in reality it's measured in km^3. It's correct that in actual, technical practice, the NEZ is going to be a volume as opposed to a scalar, but there are too many variables. Consider, for instance, that people keep on quoting ITRs and STRs of specific planes. In reality, what's applicable isn't an ITR or STR, but rather an EM-diagram that shows both maximum sustained turn rate and maximum ITR The maximum STR / ITR is really only applicable to a specific flight regime, but it gives us an idea of what the properties of the aircraft is. And that's my use of effective range as opposed to NEZ here.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
My bad. I misread it as anti radiation missile when I made the comment regarding passive sensor. My apologies.
The following source says it is 25 km range with lock on at 15 km against a 5 m square target. Translated that will be 10 km lock on against a 1 m square target. That is within the range consistent with my understanding of seeker range and not the 30 km plus you were suggesting.
I did not paraphrased you. I have consistently asked you for your technical source regarding 33 %. I am not aware of such a rule of thumb and so I am asking you for a technical reference.
The genesis of the debate is about your original claim that the J-11 will slaughter the SU-30 MKI. Since as you agree that both of us do not know many of the specifics how do you arrive at the certainty of slaughter?
- Status