Rafale needs protection from SU-30?
Rafale needs protection from SU-30?
Size is relative to the wavelength used. Our AWACS uses L band, which is 15-30cm, so it requires such a large antenna. X band is just 3cm. So you effectively need a 5-10 times smaller X band radar to get the same capability as an L band radar.
If we assume the Phalcon uses a 10m long L band radar, then a fighter jet has to carry a 1-2m long radar to become its equivalent. However with advanced technology, like GaN, the difference becomes even more stark. And once you bring resolution into the picture, the difference simply becomes heaven and earth. For the most accurate target data, you need a more or less symmetrical radar. But Phalcon doesn't need such an accurate target data since it's main job is volume scan, which is why it's at best a 10mx2m radar. So from one angle, the Phalcon is as accurate as an advanced fighter jet radar, while from another angle, the Phalcon is shitter than the Mig-21's radar in terms of resolution. Which is why fighter jet radars are symmetrical, either a circle or a square, or a similar fancy symmetrical shape like the Zhuk-AE. In simple words, a fighter jet radar is superior to the Phalcon's radar. So if you get the option of choosing between a symmetric X band radar and an asymmetric L band radar with the X band having similar performance as the best figures for the L band, then the X band is the superior radar. Similarly, most ground radars are symmetric, so are superior to the AWACS radar.
But my arguments about AWACS going obsolete have nothing to do with this. The mil pros have understood. It doesn't matter how advanced the AWACS radar is, the problem is the platform, not the sensors. So you have to carry similarly capable or the same sensors on different platforms. Due to the laws of physics and the limits of human bodies, the options are either fighter jets or drones.
Why don't you explain your point then??You don't even know what I'm talking about, so how would you understand what my core argument is.
Laughing is all fine, but you should tell the reason too so all of us could have a good laugh too.
Since they had to travel very long distance hence they were flying with only 3 drop tanks. Therefore they needed armed escorts. But don't worry, soon your AF would encounter a much more aggressive version of them.Rafale needs protection from SU-30?
Size is relative to the wavelength used. Our AWACS uses L band, which is 15-30cm, so it requires such a large antenna. X band is just 3cm. So you effectively need a 5-10 times smaller X band radar to get the same capability as an L band radar.
If we assume the Phalcon uses a 10m long L band radar, then a fighter jet has to carry a 1-2m long radar to become its equivalent. However with advanced technology, like GaN, the difference becomes even more stark. And once you bring resolution into the picture, the difference simply becomes heaven and earth. For the most accurate target data, you need a more or less symmetrical radar. But Phalcon doesn't need such an accurate target data since it's main job is volume scan, which is why it's at best a 10mx2m radar. So from one angle, the Phalcon is as accurate as an advanced fighter jet radar, while from another angle, the Phalcon is shitter than the Mig-21's radar in terms of resolution. Which is why fighter jet radars are symmetrical, either a circle or a square, or a similar fancy symmetrical shape like the Zhuk-AE. In simple words, a fighter jet radar is superior to the Phalcon's radar. So if you get the option of choosing between a symmetric X band radar and an asymmetric L band radar with the X band having similar performance as the best figures for the L band, then the X band is the superior radar. Similarly, most ground radars are symmetric, so are superior to the AWACS radar.
But my arguments about AWACS going obsolete have nothing to do with this. The mil pros have understood. It doesn't matter how advanced the AWACS radar is, the problem is the platform, not the sensors. So you have to carry similarly capable or the same sensors on different platforms. Due to the laws of physics and the limits of human bodies, the options are either fighter jets or drones.
Large sized sensors of various types..
360 * continous scanning
Large number of target tracking, large volumes of information transmission.
Long time on station..
Being on air for longer time and group of awacs can indentify low flying aircraft s or cruise missiles... On a continous basis..
More number of controllers and stations to control and co ordinate..
If fighter sized radar becomes powerful and awac sized radar should become super powerful.
If fighters get teeth to target awacs, awacs would also evolve to escape.
I think Tactical fighter sized awacs cannot replace Traditional awacs but can only supplement it.
Maybe they can do more in offensive missions.
Now JF 17 will not leave the airbase ... Did Russian fix their smoky engine issues?Rafale needs protection from SU-30?
Fighters too would suffer from this problem. You can't have equal number of TRM modules in every part ( nose cone, cheeks, fins etc) of aircraft.For the most accurate target data, you need a more or less symmetrical radar. But Phalcon doesn't need such an accurate target data since it's main job is volume scan, which is why it's at best a 10mx2m radar. So from one angle, the Phalcon is as accurate as an advanced fighter jet radar, while from another angle, the Phalcon is shitter than the Mig-21's radar in terms of resolution. Which is why fighter jet radars are symmetrical, either a circle or a square, or a similar fancy symmetrical shape like the Zhuk-AE. In simple words, a fighter jet radar is superior to the Phalcon's radar. So if you get the option of choosing between a symmetric X band radar and an asymmetric L band radar with the X band having similar performance as the best figures for the L band, then the X band is the superior radar. Similarly, most ground radars are symmetric, so are superior to the AWACS radar.
Lets wait and watch whether Fighter plane radars would be able to do these things
Right now we can only compare the Air.to Ground Pictures taken from P8 I in Ladakh with Su 30 Elta 2060 and Rafale.RBE 2 Aesa
Last time I.searched Google
the IAF still is hoping to Get 2 ISTAR Planes from Raytheon , while DRDO.wants to make 4 of them
Bear with me if I am wrong.,
In case we need 3 latest awacs to monitor entire NW border, how many fighter s needed to do the same job?
X band radar cannot be installed in traditional awacs?
Traditional awacs Being a huge aircraft their electronic counter measures will also be strong right.
Why don't you explain your point then??
Or are you fearing something??
What theory?? You still have to produce one. All you had was one irrelevant question which I answered in all possible ways.You poke holes in my theory, then let's see if I have a rebuttal.
What theory?? You still have to produce one. All you had was one irrelevant question which I answered in all possible ways.
I already provided it here.Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
Absolute embarrassment,i bet French , Americans , Pakistanis and the Chinese are laughing at us watching the overhype of foreign imported jets. This shows our mindset and why we are not able to develop our indigenous defence industry.... I will be 2* excited to watch Tejas being inducted.. A...www.strategicfront.org
Provide a rebuttal, then I will consider it seriously.
Your core argument revolved around the survivability of these assets, I provided the solution of this problem. After that you started throwing your irrelevant question on me.By incorporating stealthy design. Russia is already building a stealthy transport plane. Other types of support aircraft would follow soon. You simply couldn't negate the advantages of the sheer size of these aircrafts. Once they will get stealth with modern radar tech, they would be able to provide a coverage of 1000 Kms something not possible with a fighter size jet.
If someone goes through our discussion he would easily identify that who is making pointless arguments.Until then:
'Cause I get suckered into pointless, ridiculous arguments that go nowhere.Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates
What is being said about AF is also true for army. All the gears of land forces like tanks and artillleries take almost an year to be produced in a significant numbers. Whereas they would be consumed within weeks. You also need to keep in mind that in a full blown war these manufacturing units...www.strategicfront.org
The Rafales have flown over many countries to make their transit, these countries have given their authorization because they are friendly countries of France and India, but such authorization is generally given on condition that the plane is completely disarmed.Rafale needs protection from SU-30?
I already provided it here.
Your core argument revolved around the survivability of these assets, I provided the solution of this problem. After that you started throwing your irrelevant question on me.
If someone goes through our discussion he would easily identify that who is making pointless arguments.
Fair enough,we shouldn't expect anyone to give any tech like a loser....what a shit attitude we have...TOT is probably most embarassing this thing to do or ask
Doesn't a AWACS have a advantage due to altitude ? I would have guessed low flying planes would be more easily detected by a AWACS due to horizon limitations on a ground based radar ? Horizon limitations would also tell on the range of a ground based radar for targets at all altitudes.This should explain the situation a bit more.
View attachment 16968
The blacked out circle is the S-500, with the (advertised) 600Km range 40N6M.
The two transparent smaller circles are the maximum possible range of the AWACS when it's trying to get a look at the S-500 on the ground. It's impossible to increase the range beyond that.
Scenario 1: I put the AWACS that's outside the SAM ring over Leipzig. But the radar can only see up to where it says Poland on the map. It cannot see beyond the "L" in "Poland". The threat is still more than 200Km away from the maximum range of the AWACS. Hence useless. What it means is everything in the space between "L" and Kaliningrad is Russia's hunting grounds. And any sort of response that NATO can provide within that region is only through the use of their fighter jets. At that distance, neither AWACS nor ground control is of any use.
Scenario 2: But if the AWACS needs to become useful, it need to enter the SAM ring, at approximately the location indicated by the white dot to the east of Berlin. However that's pretty much a red zone for an AWACS. AWACS can't survive in that environment. In fact, even 4th gen fighters will find it difficult to survive there because the 40N6 is simply that good. All that the AWACS can do is try and escape by going below radar horizon.
What's interesting is, if the AWACS can see the S-500, then it's obvious the S-500 can see the AWACS. It's because both are within line of sight to each other. And, as pointed out before, a ground radar is always superior in capability compared to an AWACS radar. And you can bet all your marbles the S-500's radar is going to be far, far, far superior to the practically outdated/obsolete E-3 radar.
Fair enough,we shouldn't expect anyone to give any tech like a loser....what a shit attitude we have...TOT is probably most embarassing this thing to do or ask