a block 2 and a block 3. the block 3 participation is interesting.
Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions
- Thread starter ghazi52
- Start date
a block 2 and a block 3. the block 3 participation is interesting.
Raider 21
Moderator
Post a link or more info about this as the thread of the title does signify it being a News & Discussions page.
one of my favorite picture of PAF . if i am not wrong this is from 1988/87 era
m52k85
Registered Member
Now that PAF has checkmated IAF, PN needs to do the same to IN in the Indian Ocean area of interest. May be we can discuss on what is needed on one of the navy forums. For starters we need at least:
1. 2 x flat tops even 15k displacement category will do - operating UAVs.
1. 2 x flat tops even 15k displacement category will do - operating UAVs.
Yasser76
Elite Member
That is crazy. Battle for Pak will be won in air and on land, we simply cannot take on IN
Reichmarshal
Trusted Member
This talk of adversaries checkmating each other is bs.....
U can do it for a limited amount of time until ur enemy draws strategies n deploys weapons to even the odds n nullify the advantage.....so its an on going process nothing final.
m52k85
Registered Member
While planners are fixated on a scenario for the 'Battle of Pakistan' will they miss foreseeing the of 'Siege of Pakistan'?
So you have access to Pakistani strategic planners?
m52k85
Registered Member
Putting SM-6 on a frigate is questionable IMO. The radars on these ships really don't have the capability required to drive engagements at those ranges, and if they're operating in concert with a ship that does then that ship can host the SM-6.
Yes, I know that the "brochure sensitivity" of SPY-6(V)3 is comparable to SPY-1B (reportedly about 70% as high), but it's important to understand that it gets there in a different way that makes it less capable in the real world. The SPY-1 has a very large power-aperture product, which means that it can deliver very high signal power onto any given target. It also has fairly high receive antenna gain, but a poor system noise floor compared to SPY-6.
In contrast SPY-6(V)3 has a much smaller power-aperture product and lower receive gain as well (size matters when it comes to antennas), but truly outstanding system noise, quite a bit better even than initially specified. This gives it very good overall sensitivity in an anechoic test chamber, but makes it more susceptible to external noise sources, like say jamming. If your adversary has a well-aligned jammer then the power-aperture product is the critical parameter, and the SPY-1 is much more formidable in that department.
SPY-6(V)1 and SPY-6(V)4 are different matters. Those have very high power-aperture products and outstanding noise performance, and are clearly superior to SPY-1 across the board.
Yes, I know that the "brochure sensitivity" of SPY-6(V)3 is comparable to SPY-1B (reportedly about 70% as high), but it's important to understand that it gets there in a different way that makes it less capable in the real world. The SPY-1 has a very large power-aperture product, which means that it can deliver very high signal power onto any given target. It also has fairly high receive antenna gain, but a poor system noise floor compared to SPY-6.
In contrast SPY-6(V)3 has a much smaller power-aperture product and lower receive gain as well (size matters when it comes to antennas), but truly outstanding system noise, quite a bit better even than initially specified. This gives it very good overall sensitivity in an anechoic test chamber, but makes it more susceptible to external noise sources, like say jamming. If your adversary has a well-aligned jammer then the power-aperture product is the critical parameter, and the SPY-1 is much more formidable in that department.
SPY-6(V)1 and SPY-6(V)4 are different matters. Those have very high power-aperture products and outstanding noise performance, and are clearly superior to SPY-1 across the board.
