עבדאללה סעד

תודה לך על ביצוע כמה הצעות מצוינות הנוגעים מה "באמת" מונע מאתנו להיות מדינה מתקדמת.

עם זאת, אני רוצה רק להבהיר קצת להודעות שלי, כי אתה בספק.

[ציטוט] כלומר, בהתאם למיקום של המכ"ם, האות ניתן לעקוב בקלות 50 ק"מ לתוך השטח ההודי בלשון המעטה.
עכשיו, למה הם רוצים לשלוח את הדף שלהם על מטוסי קו על המרחב האווירי הלאומי של פקיסטן, כאשר הם יכלו ללכוד את חתימת המכ"ם של קילומטרים? [סוף ציטוט]

זה נכון אבל מצד שני, אני לא מצפה מכ"מ ים סאמס הנלוות או חלק מכ"מים צבאיים מתוחכמים יותר להיות מבצעית בכל עת. הם החליפו את בדרך כלל, דווקא כדי לשמור על האויב מאזין להם. חלק מכ"מים אלה מופעלים רק כאשר היריב ממש חודר למרחב האווירי הריבוני של המדינה.

תסתכל על המסמך הבא, ולראות אם זה עוזר לך להבין מה שאני אומר, בצורה טובה יותר.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3-13-1.pdf

My assertion was that they were not armed with AG missiles as opposed to what's being said in some sections of the press, not that they didn't have AA missiles on them. As for them intruding in to Pakistani airspace, I believe there are three points that need to be considered.

. Even during Afghan war, PAF didn't perform a hot intercept until the Soviet aircrafts were at least 7 kilometers inside our boundary (part of ROE), keeping in mind the fact that if shot down, the wreckage of enemy aircraft should fall within Pakistani territory. You don't just drop an enemy aircraft as soon as it enters your territory, until and unless it poses a viable threat or you're in a state of declared war. Indians might have done that with an unarmed PN Atlantique, but I've yet to see PAF ever acting in such a belligerent manner, in any of the wars or skirmishes that they've been a part of.

ב. If the intention behind the intrusion was to in fact attack land based targets. Why did they stop? And why do you believe Indians sent in only a couple of SU-30s or 3 Mirage 2000-H fighters, flying in at different locations and time? And I'm sure that IAF was aware of PAF presence in the area, given their intelligence gathering set-up on the ground, in Pakistan. And they must have factored it in.

ג. While Mirage 2000-H aircrafts in Indian inventory are geared towards performing SEAD and AG roles, SU-30MKIs are primarily meant for establishing air-superiority. Again, if the intention was to attack, then they should've been flying top-cover for Mirage fighters. That was not the case.

Coming to SAMS, I don't believe that Pakistan has that many 'fixed' SAM units, except for a lone well advertised SA-2 site just outside Rawalpindi, most of them are mobile.

And with all due respect, the idea that radar signature (which can frequency hop or angle track) can be captured and deciphered as soon as a radar is turned on is a tad farfetched and there is a reason why ECCM exist. It takes a certain fixed amount of signals, following the concept of packet sniffing, processing which can give you such intricate details about a particular radar system. And if the force using such systems knows anything about EW, they'll neither keep the radar on the air, long enough to actually give up such data nor indulge in the luxury of live testing and calibration. That is while keeping in mind the fundamental rule of electronic warfare, to not to light up radars outside actual combat situations.

You should also note that there is a difference between finding a target and actually acquiring, targeting and feeding target parameters to the fire control radars associated with the SAM and AAA systems in use. It's the latter three that actually involve the radars actually lighting up.

And please, feel free to invite in people, whom you reckon are good at the subject, for I'd like to learn more about it.

As for the Arab-Israeli conflict, are you sure that you're not mixing up the 1973 war with the war fought in 1967? If not, would you mind telling me as to exactly how many SAM sites did any of the Arab countries have, during the 1967 conflict? From what I know and have read, EW in 1967 war was limited to jamming radio communications. And that is an entirely different field of study.

And if you were referring to the war of attrition and the 1973 Arab-Israel war, then you should know that the state of Israel lost over 22 and 40 aircrafts respectively in these conflicts, precisely due to a lack of SAM-suppression doctrine and preparation.

Now, studying the 1982 Bekaa valley conflict, should give you a lot of information on how IDF/AF was able to completely annihilate Syrian SAM cover and radar sites. They had conducted extensive aerial reconnaissance of the Bekaa valley for an entire year and did training missions in the Negev desert raiding mock SAM sites similar to those in Lebanon.

Similar information can be found, if you're to study preparation on part of allied forces to take on Iraqi air defense. They had employed several ELINT assets in the arena, during the build up to operation Desert Shield with the main purpose of mapping out Iraqi EOoB ie deployment, composition of Iraqi AD batteries, support radar systems and mapping out command and control stations and frequencies used by them to communicate. Such is the preparation, when you're to prepare for SEAD missions.

And guess what else did they do? They performed the oldest trick in the book of electronic warfare in the period preceding actual hostilities; they staged multiple penetrations of Iraqi airspace, forcing the Iraqis to light up their radars in order to engage inbound bogies thus giving up the identity and position of their radars and AD formations. Does it sound similar to what happened here? To me it does.

And please, I know what HARM is all about, the reason I mentioned it in my previous reply. But the fact remains that India, if it attacked Pakistan, will not indulge in destroying our SAM batteries for that will amount to going to war with Pakistan. Given Indian political objectives and their will to conduct 'surgical strikes', what they will instead target for is actually jamming our ground based aerial defense assets.

And such violations did in fact help Indians and do mind that radar signatures are in fact kept in databases. Try looking up the term DRFM and see if it's of any help. =)

And let's not jump the gun here, the only thing that I pointed out was you were repeating certain points that I've already made in my post so I couldn't really make out their purpose. Feel free to further indulge me in this discussion for it's heartily entertaining and educating.

Nope, that is not true.

Indian phalcons will feature a phased array radar in a top mounted dome. As far as their indigenous AWACs (involving Embrar aircrafts) program is concerned, I'm not well versed in its details.

As to how well integrated this system will be, that's a pretty tough question to answer since I do not have first hand access to either their systems or such information. But if Israeli technology and their work is anything to go by, I'm guessing that they'll do a good job at integrating the two assets into a common information stream.

Do note, that missiles and nukes have been around for nearly 5 decades now, but that hasn't deterred countries with non-conventional weapons to entirely give up on their conventional weapons programs. That is because such hardware and conventional forces in general are responsible for increasing the threshold of a country, in terms of use of nuclear weapons. The better the conventional forces, the less need there is for a country to use non-conventional weapons. And thus these weapons are useful in their own regard.

IAF did not lose any Mig-25 during the Kargil conflict. Two Indian aircrafts were shot down; a Mig 21 and a Mig 27.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1bzxYvw8Uo