Karan M wrote:
When you discuss something on any topic, it is usually useful to at least do some basic research lest you continue to make mistakes.
Standard EW pods are meant to reduce the range of the opponent FCR not merely the missiles, by confounding it in a head-on scenario/ tail chase scenario & the more powerful the pod, the greater the effect.
And your assumption was that I was not aware of this?
You pretty much laid it out here:The EW carried by the Flankers whether SAP 18 or ELTA 8222 protect the Flankers from AAMs where the RVV-AE is outranged
These pods are meant to protect the Flankers from any long range acquisition and targeting. Not merely when RVV-AE is outranged. The Russians can also multi-target with SARH missiles which equalize the range. Point being there are multiple tactics in play if the numbers are on your side to maintain an equal response and also, you don't let the opponent take the advantage in the preliminary chess moves as we did, due to our ROE.
Look at the size of the Russian pods. The fact the Chinese did not take their EW to the exercise shows that they were deliberately seeking to figure out what was the performance of their aircraft vs the latest western aircraft they could exercise against, and determine the effectiveness without giving away the actual capability of the entire "system". The Thai's were kind enough to play along.
Nobody takes along an active EW suite to exercises unless they are being done in a formal alliance setting i.e. NATO.
So then you now realize how unrealistic the inferences in the above article are, given one of the most critical aspects of the PRC Flankers is missing! And furthermore, they took their Tier 2 assets to the exercise next time along. Not their Tier 1 J11s which are equipped with far more powerful radars and have a superior persistence/payload combination. What does that tell you? Also, for all the talk of copying the Gripen - look at what they developed. The J-20. A massive beast, with pretty lousy T:W, not really agile, but a sort of stealth Flanker heavy fighter.
The BD has an advertised range of 110 km head on vs the AE range of 80 km. In the exercises quoted earlier the AE's effective range was 50 km. I wonder what the effective range of the BD is. In any event when the PLAAF sent the J-10C with AESA and the PL-15 the kill/loss ratios on both sides were even.
The missile you are referring to is the RVV-SD also known as the R-77-1 which was deliberately designed to counter the earlier AMRAAMs C5/C7 etc, and hence covers the range gap of the earlier R77 which was introduced as a counter to earlier AMRAAMs. The RVV-BD is this missile.https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/116 ... 32?lang=en
This is a long range missile which is a rough analog of the AIM-54 Phoenix which was the mainstay of the F-14 fleet. Originally designed for larger aircraft, the latest variant has a dual pulse motor and improved performance to handle a wider range of targets.
Also remember India is developing the SFDR with Russia. This is a full blown Meteor class missile. Do you think only India would develop and deploy a long range ramjet AAM? India took the R77 seeker and developed its propulsion to make an Astra to blow the R77/RVV-AE out of the water, why do you think that Russia didn't do this years back? Fact is they didn't have to. They were setting up a complex layered defense set up wherein S-400s, MiG-31s, Su-30s, Su-27s would all fit like cogs in a wheel and engage targets at different ranges, one missile or two was below their requirements. Now they are turning back towards the development and are coming out with newer products, given the export market is asking for it, and even their own expeditionary deployment to Syria type situations would benefit from it.
The fact that the PLAAF sent the J-10C as versus the J-11 speaks volumes. It means they did not want to show their actual best.
The J-10C is a single engined fighter. But with an AESA radar and the PL-15, and (unknown EW suite) is it any less capable? Maybe in terms of payload and time to speed/altitude yes but in terms of radar, AAMs and EW no.
I suggest you do a bit more reading on the topic from this forum itself.
A single engine J-10 is always going to be disadvantaged in terms of radar and EW performance vs a twin engine aircraft which has a larger power envelope and a larger volume to put in a far more capable radar. What matters more to a radar? Radar area or power, or both? The latter is the reason why even the USAF continues to tinker around with its F-15s and the IDFAF prize theirs so highly and didnt move to an all single engine force which would be far cheaper to maintain! Simply put, smaller fighters leverage their smaller signature to "make do" with smaller radars, and less powerful EW. However, while this is ok in a scripted scenario wherein both sides have fighters in a nice range box where the exercise takes place, in real world scenarios for true long range pickup these smaller fighters start depending more and more on AWACS and other supporting assets.
I suggest you actually look at what a YJ-91 ARM is, its range, its capabilities before thinking it is any silver bullet vs a S-300 let alone the S-400. Neither the Gripen or the F-22 or the F-35 have any kills either. ARMs by themselves are very limited against a S-400 complex. If only it were that easy. The S-300/400 field missiles with a range of 120/250/380 km. Good luck in taking that out with a 120km missile.
It all depends on the deployment. If the S-400 is deployed within 120 km of the border, it will be within range from a YJ-91 launched from within China/Pakistan.
Are you aware of the concept of a layered defence and the fact that systems of this class have decoys? You are taking the maximum range of an ARM and then assuming it will automatically knock out a radar. Kindly go back and look at the number of HARMs used in the Balkan conflict to see how limited ARMs like the YJ-91 are. It doesnt even appear to have the advanced features AARGM and NGARM have to boost its efficiency, such as dual seekers. And it will have to run the gauntlet of CIWS, and the S-400 itself, which by virtue of its huge radar set can actually detect missiles targeted at it and cue other weapons systems.
Your larger point is completely wrong, because you don't even seem to understand the topic you are attempting to make points on.
You just took a 1980s era warmed over Flanker, with its key avionics hobbled by a deliberate downgrade, put it against a fighter developed a generation later and stated the former was inferior, without even understanding the context, and the deliberate manner in which the PLAAF sent over assets which it did not consider to be its premier ones, and to be extra careful removed their key capabilities which would have made them acquit themselves far better than they did.
There were 3 exercises conduced between the PLAAF and Thais, 2015 where the warmed over Flankers as you call them were fielded and then by 2019 the most upto date J-10Cs were fielded. So it was not as if China held back the latest/best. As far as I know the J-10C was first integrated with an AESA radar. The J-11D variant of the J-11 series will have an AESA radar.
The PLAAF tacticians are not stupid. Please don't be under the assumption that they are. They did not send over any of their best in class systems, and sent over precisely those which they thought would give the Gripen C/Ds a tough fight despite their technological limitations (for all the talk of AESA, the J-10C was able to barely hold its own vs a Gripen C/D, equivalent to our LCA Mk1). They did not send their J-11s with more powerful radars (AESA alone is not the determiner of which radar is more powerful). The Japanese were the first to introduce AESAs on their F-2s in Asia, compare and contrast that to the ECR-90 on the EF which is a standard MSA, and the latter will be far more capable.
Which is why I say this topic is far more complex than you think it is merely because buzzwords like AESA etc have begun to imply automatic superiority.
The PLAAF has a fancy J-20 with AESA and stealth etc. Yet they went and purchased Su-35s for their praetorian guard over Beijing, with PESA radars and mere EW. Why do you think that was? Two squadrons merely to reverse engineer?
Their AESA radars, fancy SAMs apart, they continue to invest in S-300/S-400 for their praetorian defense of Beijing and VAs. Battalion set after set have been purchased. The S-400 is merely the latest. They have had testfires, deployed them, yet they continue to invest in these expensive systems. Why do you think that is? The Russian dedicated PESAs and EW continue to be a very tough nut to crack for most AF, and bar the USAF literally nobody has the technology to attack the whole onion. The S-500 is on its way BTW, which takes into account the LO advancements the US has made with the F-35 and in this game of shield vs sword, Russia is not a latecomer. You actually look at their radar designs, and it becomes very clear as to how capable the sets really are, they traded size for performance and were happy with it. Yes, the fighter becomes bigger as a result, but they are ok with that because for that too, they have an answer which is heavy duty active EW.