Pakistan AirForce : Updates & Discussions

[randomradio]

In terms of radar and EW, Pakistan's older F-16A/Bs are on par with the newer B52+ model ac. Incidentally, upgrades (AN/APG-68V9 + AIDEWS) to those airframes were initiated around the same time as the IAFs MiG-29 UPG. So they are more or less evenly matched.

The radar is more or less the same, but the D-29 EW suite (2014) on the Mig-29 is AESA-based and is more advanced than AIDEWS that was sold to the PAF after 2008 and contracted in 2012. It's an old system, not even from the same era. It's basically from the era the MKI first got the EL/L 8222. They can catch up with the new procurement if they get the ALQ-254 meant for the V. It's unclear if PAF will get Viper Shield with GaN, or if they will even get the Viper Shield in the first place.

The new D-29 handed over to BEL for production is now GaN-based, fully digital, AI-enabled, and comes with full integration with the radar. So it's a tough act to follow with an imported tech.

Like the IAF, Pakistan's AD network is multi-layered, configured around overlapping base (BADZ) and territorial (ADGES) air defence zones.

While many of their radars and C2 units have been destroyed, the core network (which manages its ADIZ etc is) more or less intact.

Else, you'd have seen the PAF running round the clock CAP sorties to enforce airspace closure immediately after ceasefire was declared.

Their AD was degraded in Op Sindoor but far from destroyed.

Op Sindoor was a demonstration of capabilities, so core infra was avoided. But the demonstration itself was enough to gain escalation dominance and ground the PAF. After the clash on the 7th, the PAF stopped flying, resorting only to drones and missile attacks thereafter. As Hellfire pointed out back then, the PAF were just 24 hours away from being annihilated.

We knew we had won, and they knew that too, so we stopped. We demonstrated that everything they had was useless against us.

Nevertheless, the degradation was serious. Half of their long range radars, all of their long range SAMs, 33% of their medium range SAMs, 100% of their anti-stealth radars, 1 Erieye and possibly 1 more Erieye in the sky considering the DA-20s were a no-show. It's essentially 50-60% of the PAF's air defense capabilities that were destroyed.

 

[randomradio]

First of all before i reply on another one of your claims that I just find wrong both on FBL & F35 being stuck.


let's get one thing straight, can you describe to me how you think flight control allows communication between different aircrafts/space assests?

The purpose of flight control isn't to communicate, the backbone of what the flight control rests on becomes common to both flight control and sensor data and this opens up the pathway for high speed connectivity. To use electronic interfaces you need FBL that allows seamless connectivity between offboard nodes to the aircraft, FBL allows everything to sit on top of a single backbone interface.

Simply put, FBL to satellite to drone is a direct connection. But FBW to satellite to drone happens through intermediaries with losses occuring in repeaters.

For example, the F-35's data bandwidth is 2 Gbps, but the interconnect between the 400 Mbps FireWire and 2 Gbps data are two 32-port electrical inter-switch link modules with a speed of 24 Gbps.

There is a need to connect the flight controls to the sensors because that's how sensors calculate based on what the aircraft is doing.

Let me simplify it to a ridiculous level. Imagine a jet is flying at mach 0.9 with its radar switched on and there's a target of interest traveling towards it at mach 0.9 too. The radar's calculating; the target is at this distance, at this speed, at this bearing etc. But suddenly you as the pilot decide to rapidly lose altitude for the sake of zoom climb at supersonic speed. So the radar was already doing one thing, and suddenly the state of the aircraft changed. How in the hell do you expect the radar to know you decided to change your state that rapidly? So now the flight control informs the avionics control of the change in state, which the radar then corrects via phase shifts and new velocity calculations to keep the target within its cone and send accurate, error-free fire control data to the weapons control. Now, since this is all internal to the aircraft, copper was enough, since the latency was just a few dozen milliseconds.

Drones add far more complexity to this system. You need all your flight controls and sensors to sync up and function with the least latency possible. When it comes to flying formations with human pilots, they use their mouths to bark orders and eyes and muscle memory to change state. But drones can't do that, so the intentions of the manned fighter is sent to the drones via the FBL. Imagine in the same situation as above, you are flying a formation with drones and you suddenly decide to zoom climb. The drones don't know what the hell you're doing. Your flight control needs to inform them of the action taking place just like the human pilot does using words. So, yeah, good luck trying to bank left while the drones decide to fly straight.

Now if a drone is 50 km away, without the two of you seamlessly connected, how in the hell are either of you going to know what the other is up to?

In the real world, the human pilot will tell the e-pilot to zoom climb via voice control or just by fiddling with the throttle and stick, the e-pilot will inform the drones of the same before the change in state. During this time, all the sensors will start correcting for the change in state. So the manned fighter and all the drones have their flight controls and sensors interconnected using FBL, without using trashy electrical interconnects. Direct photon connections and none of that electron-photon transitions.

Now comes real world example for the average civilian, so everybody gets the "Ah, lightbulb on" moment.


Now that's just 10+ Gbps, whereas we need Tbps.

To put it into perspective, the F-35 today with its smaller and fewer sensors than next gen jets currently generates 1 TB of sensor data in a single flight, which could increase phenomenally with Block 4. On 6th gen, it's going to be a few dozen to a few hundred TB of data depending on sensor advancements.

That's why everybody important is experimenting with laser and quantum comms while establishing large satellite constellations for comms and surveillance. Pretty soon even weapons in space.

(Warfare in the future belongs to the rich.)

Now, I can't explain things simpler than this.

FBL.

 

[randomradio]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395396055_Active_Cancellation_Algorithm_for_Radar_Cross_Section_Reduction

Nothing new, f35, su57, su35s, super hornets NGJ etc, EW suites/pods can do *Active cancellation* along with other EW methods.

It can be supplementary, but its not a alternative to passive materials and shaping based stealth.

ACT is general-purpose and can be used liberally, you can reduce RCS, which is what the study proved, but you need to purpose-build the aircraft for AC if you want VLO.

For example, LCA Mk2 is not built for stealth, but we will have a winner if the RCS is kept well below 1m2 with weapons. TEDBF is built with some stealth in mind, so AC can improve that quite a bit. We are likely to see physical signs of signature reduction, including metamaterials. If the MMs are tuned and the jet comes with AC, then we could get far better performance than the Rafale.

NGJ delivering AC is pointless, that's not its role. SH will have to use its own internal suite. I'm sure Gripen E and Typhoon will also come with AC. But they are unlikely to achieve Rafale's level. Nor are they going to be as mature, since the Rafale's been doing this since the mid-2000s.

Passive stealth with AC will add a further layer of protection. Lesser antennas and emissions required to achieve AC after all.

 

[randomradio]

@randomradio

This is why we should be investing in SEAD & DEAD
Missiles and Drones

https://twitter.com/x/status/2032872789850599845

The Israelis and Americans did what we did in Op Sindoor.

 

[Rajput Lion]

That requires low altitude penetration, but the missile won't have the energy to climb. Plus it will require the J-35's own radar. At medium and high altitude, it will be within the range of both S-400 and MRSAM.

PL-16 would have sea level range of 80kms. J-35AE may pop up from below to launch its AAM after making a zoom climb on full-throttle. Yes, this exposes it to S-400 & our other ADS, but with towed decoys, ACT & Expendable decoys, it very well defeat our SAMs and get away.

Sure. But their problems right now are so big that the J-35 won't bridge that gap.

But still it would enhance their strength and increase our threat perception.

Technical malfunction. Pilot disorientation. Bird strike. Maintenance failure. Plenty of reasons not related to hostile action. Or it was just taken out of the upgrade line for some reason, which is quite common when jets are handed over to DRDO for testing and weapons integration.

All facts point our towards shot down. But the fact is, even with Rafale's ACT fully working, it won't bring its loaded RCS(with 2 EFTs, AAMs, bombs etc.) to below -10dBsm. And even if ACT reduces its loaded RCS to 0.5m^2, modern radars will have no problem tracking and shooting at Rafale. ACT is just another trick and not the 'be all, end all' of deception.

There's not much difference between ALE-70 and X-Guard. Both are from the same generation and do the same things. Both are monopulse and LORO and both act as a decoy wingman. It's AI-driven too and fully integrated with SPECTRA, like ALE-70 on the F-35. Overall, the only difference is the ALE-70 is internal.

F-35A block 4 will get BriteCloud expendable decoys too.

Rafale without ACT and carrying weapons is a regular 4th gen aircraft in terms of RCS. ACT has an off and on switch. So yeah, it's only stealthy when ACT is on.

It's only stealthy even with ACT "on" when it's flying clean and from 90° frontal arc. When loaded with EFTs(2 as standard fit), bombs and missiles and when tracked by multiple radars of multiple bands from multiple aspects, it won't remain stealthy whatsoever. Then Rafale will try to fly low and fast, using terrain-hugging to compensate for its lack of stealth. Everyone knows this.

What everyone doesn't know is this: IAF doesn't view Rafale as our "tip of the spear" like they did before, post last year's skirmish. That's why we are now procuring Su-57s and trying to expedite AMCA. Rafale is viewed more as our new backbone and workhorse.

 

[randomradio]

PL-16 would have sea level range of 80kms. J-35AE may pop up from below to launch its AAM after making a zoom climb on full-throttle. Yes, this exposes it to S-400 & our other ADS, but with towed decoys, ACT & Expendable decoys, it very well defeat our SAMs and get away.

At that range, you won't have stealth. At low altitude, you will be exposed to networked low-level radars, MRSAM, Akash etc, not just fighter radars. And they will fire AAMs at interception altitudes, within range of DEW and MRSAM. These are tactics that cannot be employed right over IADS. Maybe they can do it over areas that do not have coverage, but the IAF doesn't have to stay and fight in those cases.

These tactics are more effective against our SAMs, but that also creates more traffic and more interception opportunities. We have more SAMs, they will have few jets.

But still it would enhance their strength and increase our threat perception.

To a certain degree, yes. But it's only a threat in isolation, at least until the PAF creates a new IADS.

All facts point our towards shot down. But the fact is, even with Rafale's ACT fully working, it won't bring its loaded RCS(with 2 EFTs, AAMs, bombs etc.) to below -10dBsm. And even if ACT reduces its loaded RCS to 0.5m^2, modern radars will have no problem tracking and shooting at Rafale. ACT is just another trick and not the 'be all, end all' of deception.

You are referring to what's been achieved on the F3 (RO with loadout) in the 2000s, not F3R (LO, 0.01m2 class, with loadout) or F4 or F5.

F-35A block 4 will get BriteCloud expendable decoys too.

The French equivalent for Rafale is called LEA.

It's only stealthy even with ACT "on" when it's flying clean and from 90° frontal arc. When loaded with EFTs(2 as standard fit), bombs and missiles and when tracked by multiple radars of multiple bands from multiple aspects, it won't remain stealthy whatsoever. Then Rafale will try to fly low and fast, using terrain-hugging to compensate for its lack of stealth. Everyone knows this.

The AC works with loadout. As Picdel said, on F3R the RCS drops by a magnitude with weapons on. So 0.0001m2 class drops down to 0.01m2 - 0.001m2. We could see improvements on F4 and F5, AC improvement is dependent on antenna and processor upgrades along with new algorithms.

That was the point of the CSIR paper too.

What everyone doesn't know is this: IAF doesn't view Rafale as our "tip of the spear" like they did before, post last year's skirmish. That's why we are now procuring Su-57s and trying to expedite AMCA. Rafale is viewed more as our new backbone and workhorse.

That makes it tip of the spear. You buy that in large numbers. I think you are confusing the term with silver bullet, which is bought in small numbers for its niche capabilities.

 

[Rajput Lion]

At that range, you won't have stealth. At low altitude, you will be exposed to networked low-level radars, MRSAM, Akash etc, not just fighter radars. And they will fire AAMs at interception altitudes, within range of DEW and MRSAM. These are tactics that cannot be employed right over IADS. Maybe they can do it over areas that do not have coverage, but the IAF doesn't have to stay and fight in those cases.

These tactics are more effective against our SAMs, but that also creates more traffic and more interception opportunities. We have more SAMs, they will have few jets.



To a certain degree, yes. But it's only a threat in isolation, at least until the PAF creates a new IADS.



You are referring to what's been achieved on the F3 (RO with loadout) in the 2000s, not F3R (LO, 0.01m2 class, with loadout) or F4 or F5.



The French equivalent for Rafale is called LEA.



The AC works with loadout. As Picdel said, on F3R the RCS drops by a magnitude with weapons on. So 0.0001m2 class drops down to 0.01m2 - 0.001m2. We could see improvements on F4 and F5, AC improvement is dependent on antenna and processor upgrades along with new algorithms.

That was the point of the CSIR paper too.



That makes it tip of the spear. You buy that in large numbers. I think you are confusing the term with silver bullet, which is bought in small numbers for its niche capabilities.

If Rafale has 0.01m^2 RCS with full external loadout(with ACT) then what is the need to fly very low and very fast? Just stay high, coserve fuel, enhance your weapons range and return home safely? Entire Rafale's war doctine is to fly very low and very fast only to pop up in the end to release Hammer and return home safely. Stealth aircraft use different tactics.

Regarding numbers, if we use "tip of the spear" analogy based upon that, then MKI with over 270 jets(12 more ordered), would still be our tip not Rafale. Su-57 is being discussed not just as a limited "silver bullet" force, but our next "tip of the spear" with having 100+ locally assembled jets until AMCA MK2 comes online in late 2030s or early 2040s.

 

[FalconSlayers]

all of their long range SAMs, 33% of their medium range SAMs

No evidence of any of their SAM destruction presented so far. Even in claims they claimed an LY-80 in Rahwali cantt and a SAM in Okara. In terms of radars, they've struck 6-7 at least at Pasrur, Chunian, Arifwala, Jacobabad, Sargodha, Sukkur, Jallo.

 

[randomradio]

If Rafale has 0.01m^2 RCS with full external loadout(with ACT) then what is the need to fly very low and very fast? Just stay high, coserve fuel, enhance your weapons range and return home safely? Entire Rafale's war doctine is to fly very low and very fast only to pop up in the end to release Hammer and return home safely. Stealth aircraft use different tactics.

If F-35 is VLO, then why do pilots train for low altitude penetration?

'Cause stealth isn't invisibility. All you're doing is reducing your signature. You are still detectable in many ways via many sensors.

Not just cooperative ground sensors, but also AWACS, other fighters, IR sensors on drones, satellites etc. So even stealth jets have to go low to use ground clutter.

Even B-2 and B-21 train for low altitude. B-2 can fly 250 feet off the ground, the same as Rafale and F-35.

To get a definitive hit, you still need to go low and close to drop a high pk bomb on the target. Weapons fired from long range tend to miss or get intercepted far more often. Even more so if the target is mobile, then you have to use 1 m CEP bombs from very short distances, like Hammer and JDAM. You are supported by other high flying assets with EW, CMs, and ARMs though, to keep the SAM site busy, if necessary.

In 2012 in Slovakia, a Rafale B defeated their S-300PMU-1 in a multinational EW exercise called MACE XIII using active cancelation. So it could do that back then. Many other aircraft like M2000D, F-16AM, Norway's DA-20, Germany's Learjet with Cassidian pods, Turkish Phantoms with EL/L 8222 etc, many advanced fighters and dedicated EW aircraft, were defeated by the S-300.

Regarding numbers, if we use "tip of the spear" analogy based upon that, then MKI with over 270 jets(12 more ordered), would still be our tip not Rafale. Su-57 is being discussed not just as a limited "silver bullet" force, but our next "tip of the spear" with having 100+ locally assembled jets until AMCA MK2 comes online in late 2030s or early 2040s.

For each era, we have a different tip of the spear. And for different roles too, there are different spears. We even have weapons acting as a tip of the spear; Meteor today, Gandiva tomorrow.

Rafale F3R is quite superlative enough in capabilities and numbers relative to our western enemy to act as tip of the spear. Against our northern enemy, we are insufficient in terms of numbers and sensor capabilities. Naturally, we need numbers for AMCA too. Just getting the IOC and FOC jets are not enough, we need 4-5 squadrons of the Mk2, which is why I keep using 2045 as the true conclusion to AMCA's induction.

2035 would be Rafale's. LCA Mk1A needs until 2030, Mk2 until 2037.

We have time too. PLAAF cannot gain an advantage over us with their current capabilities. The Himalayas block their LoS into our depth areas, and coming into our LoS puts them within range of air defenses, so their 5th gen jets can do nothing more than DCA or act as glorified rocket forces. So they are going to have to introduce 6th gen jets and stealth bombers and get them in numbers too, and that will take until 2035 at the bare minimum. And because their first priority lies in the east, with Japan mounting a lot of new pressure, inductions into WTC will take a lot longer, so closer to 2040.

China's being pressured by the US from multiple axes too. It appears US and Israel will turn to Pakistan next, so the Chinese don't have the time to deal with India. Even if they do create problems at the border during this time, it will stay well below the threshold of a shooting war. China's doing their best to separate India from the US, and India is letting that happen. The last thing they are gonna do is start another confrontation and push us away.

We will have Rafales in sufficient numbers by then. Even Kusha, BMD P2/P3, Sudarshan Chakra, satellite grid, AWACS, refuelers etc. All contracted naval vessels. Even the economic muscle. It's quite ridiculous how the Chinese boxed themselves into a corner in such a short time, just a year since Trump came to power.

 

[randomradio]

No evidence of any of their SAM destruction presented so far. Even in claims they claimed an LY-80 in Rahwali cantt and a SAM in Okara. In terms of radars, they've struck 6-7 at least at Pasrur, Chunian, Arifwala, Jacobabad, Sargodha, Sukkur, Jallo.

Official releases focused on strategic targets. OSINT images showed off some tactical losses, like radars. I've seen images of 5 radars, 3 TPY-77, 1 YLC-8, and 1 TPS-43. There was a second 43 too, didn't see the image myself. I don't know about the 7th one.

Lahore's HQ-9 radar was destroyed by a Harop/Harpy drone, and that was captured on camera, although the target was hidden from view, we only saw the explosion.

This one:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

The HQ-16 in Karachi was the other target.

 

[Rajput Lion]

If F-35 is VLO, then why do pilots train for low altitude penetration?

'Cause stealth isn't invisibility. All you're doing is reducing your signature. You are still detectable in many ways via many sensors.

This is true but difference is entire Rafale's deep strike philosophy is based upon fast, low level ingress. F-35A doesn't do that.

Not just cooperative ground sensors, but also AWACS, other fighters, IR sensors on drones, satellites etc. So even stealth jets have to go low to use ground clutter.

Even B-2 and B-21 train for low altitude. B-2 can fly 250 feet off the ground, the same as Rafale and F-35.

B-2 yes, B-21 nope. Just look at their wing designs.

To get a definitive hit, you still need to go low and close to drop a high pk bomb on the target. Weapons fired from long range tend to miss or get intercepted far more often. Even more so if the target is mobile, then you have to use 1 m CEP bombs from very short distances, like Hammer and JDAM. You are supported by other high flying assets with EW, CMs, and ARMs though, to keep the SAM site busy, if necessary.

Thanks to EOTS, F-35 can stay high and yet hunt for TELs, SAMs etc. This is the power of real stealth.

In 2012 in Slovakia, a Rafale B defeated their S-300PMU-1 in a multinational EW exercise called MACE XIII using active cancelation. So it could do that back then. Many other aircraft like M2000D, F-16AM, Norway's DA-20, Germany's Learjet with Cassidian pods, Turkish Phantoms with EL/L 8222 etc, many advanced fighters and dedicated EW aircraft, were defeated by the S-300.

Modern radars/SAMs/IADS are way better than S-300's. French know this, that's why there are looking for MUM-T in Rafale F5.

For each era, we have a different tip of the spear. And for different roles too, there are different spears. We even have weapons acting as a tip of the spear; Meteor today, Gandiva tomorrow.

Rafale F3R is quite superlative enough in capabilities and numbers relative to our western enemy to act as tip of the spear. Against our northern enemy, we are insufficient in terms of numbers and sensor capabilities. Naturally, we need numbers for AMCA too. Just getting the IOC and FOC jets are not enough, we need 4-5 squadrons of the Mk2, which is why I keep using 2045 as the true conclusion to AMCA's induction.

2035 would be Rafale's. LCA Mk1A needs until 2030, Mk2 until 2037.

We have time too. PLAAF cannot gain an advantage over us with their current capabilities. The Himalayas block their LoS into our depth areas, and coming into our LoS puts them within range of air defenses, so their 5th gen jets can do nothing more than DCA or act as glorified rocket forces. So they are going to have to introduce 6th gen jets and stealth bombers and get them in numbers too, and that will take until 2035 at the bare minimum. And because their first priority lies in the east, with Japan mounting a lot of new pressure, inductions into WTC will take a lot longer, so closer to 2040.

China's being pressured by the US from multiple axes too. It appears US and Israel will turn to Pakistan next, so the Chinese don't have the time to deal with India. Even if they do create problems at the border during this time, it will stay well below the threshold of a shooting war. China's doing their best to separate India from the US, and India is letting that happen. The last thing they are gonna do is start another confrontation and push us away.

We will have Rafales in sufficient numbers by then. Even Kusha, BMD P2/P3, Sudarshan Chakra, satellite grid, AWACS, refuelers etc. All contracted naval vessels. Even the economic muscle. It's quite ridiculous how the Chinese boxed themselves into a corner in such a short time, just a year since Trump came to power.

IAF think that we need Su-57s(favourably 2-seat) with Indian avionics to take on China. If Rafale were good enough to deal with J-20A or J-35AE or J-36 or J-50, then IAF won't think about procuring Su-57 whatsoever. Su-57's procurement is a direct signal that IAF don't think Rafale would remain our tip of the spear vis-a-vis PLAAF.

Anyways, Rafale is still a superlative 4.5 gen jet and I already said we are scrapping MRFA to go for direct order of 90 Rafales. IAF went one step better and included 24 F5s as well. Rafale, is now seen more as our backbone than pure tip.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Official releases focused on strategic targets. OSINT images showed off some tactical losses, like radars. I've seen images of 5 radars, 3 TPY-77, 1 YLC-8, and 1 TPS-43. There was a second 43 too, didn't see the image myself. I don't know about the 7th one.

Lahore's HQ-9 radar was destroyed by a Harop/Harpy drone, and that was captured on camera, although the target was hidden from view, we only saw the explosion.

This one:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

The HQ-16 in Karachi was the other target.

The video is literally from Ukraine
The target in Lahore was not an HQ-9, probably some relay node of LY-80.

The Harop attack in Malir didn't yield anything.

 

[babablacksheep]

The purpose of flight control isn't to communicate, the backbone of what the flight control rests on becomes common to both flight control and sensor data and this opens up the pathway for high speed connectivity. To use electronic interfaces you need FBL that allows seamless connectivity between offboard nodes to the aircraft, FBL allows everything to sit on top of a single backbone interface.

Simply put, FBL to satellite to drone is a direct connection. But FBW to satellite to drone happens through intermediaries with losses occuring in repeaters.

For example, the F-35's data bandwidth is 2 Gbps, but the interconnect between the 400 Mbps FireWire and 2 Gbps data are two 32-port electrical inter-switch link modules with a speed of 24 Gbps.

There is a need to connect the flight controls to the sensors because that's how sensors calculate based on what the aircraft is doing.

Let me simplify it to a ridiculous level. Imagine a jet is flying at mach 0.9 with its radar switched on and there's a target of interest traveling towards it at mach 0.9 too. The radar's calculating; the target is at this distance, at this speed, at this bearing etc. But suddenly you as the pilot decide to rapidly lose altitude for the sake of zoom climb at supersonic speed. So the radar was already doing one thing, and suddenly the state of the aircraft changed. How in the hell do you expect the radar to know you decided to change your state that rapidly? So now the flight control informs the avionics control of the change in state, which the radar then corrects via phase shifts and new velocity calculations to keep the target within its cone and send accurate, error-free fire control data to the weapons control. Now, since this is all internal to the aircraft, copper was enough, since the latency was just a few dozen milliseconds.

Drones add far more complexity to this system. You need all your flight controls and sensors to sync up and function with the least latency possible. When it comes to flying formations with human pilots, they use their mouths to bark orders and eyes and muscle memory to change state. But drones can't do that, so the intentions of the manned fighter is sent to the drones via the FBL. Imagine in the same situation as above, you are flying a formation with drones and you suddenly decide to zoom climb. The drones don't know what the hell you're doing. Your flight control needs to inform them of the action taking place just like the human pilot does using words. So, yeah, good luck trying to bank left while the drones decide to fly straight.

Now if a drone is 50 km away, without the two of you seamlessly connected, how in the hell are either of you going to know what the other is up to?

In the real world, the human pilot will tell the e-pilot to zoom climb via voice control or just by fiddling with the throttle and stick, the e-pilot will inform the drones of the same before the change in state. During this time, all the sensors will start correcting for the change in state. So the manned fighter and all the drones have their flight controls and sensors interconnected using FBL, without using trashy electrical interconnects. Direct photon connections and none of that electron-photon transitions.

Now comes real world example for the average civilian, so everybody gets the "Ah, lightbulb on" moment.
View attachment 50377

Now that's just 10+ Gbps, whereas we need Tbps.

To put it into perspective, the F-35 today with its smaller and fewer sensors than next gen jets currently generates 1 TB of sensor data in a single flight, which could increase phenomenally with Block 4. On 6th gen, it's going to be a few dozen to a few hundred TB of data depending on sensor advancements.

That's why everybody important is experimenting with laser and quantum comms while establishing large satellite constellations for comms and surveillance. Pretty soon even weapons in space.

(Warfare in the future belongs to the rich.)

Now, I can't explain things simpler than this.

FBL.

to put it compactly. You're portrayal of FBL as enabling a "direct photon connection" from internal flight controls to satellites or drones (bypassing intermediaries and repeater losses) is fundamentally just incorrect.

External offboard links are wireless by necessity: RF datalinks (MADL ) or free-space optical (laser) communications, these involve signal modulation, beam acquisition/pointing/tracking, atmospheric propagation losses, diffraction limits & beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS)—relays or gateways.

No continuous optical fiber "backbone" extends externally, photon-to-electron transitions are inevitable at transmission/reception points, and losses stem from physics (ex: beam divergence, scintillation), not from being "FBW based".


Again FBL will sure be a stepup, but not a necessity for future high-badwidth data processing and comms.


Current F-35's already use of optical Fibre Channel internally for high-bandwidth sensor fusion is good enough as EXTERNALS will remain wireless via MADL or emerging lasers—no continuous fiber to drones/sats.

 

[babablacksheep]

NGJ delivering AC is pointless, that's not its role

Active Electronic Attack (AEA): The NGJ pod identifies enemy radar signals and generates a precise, high-powered response to disrupt or "cancel" the enemy's ability to track the aircraft.

ACT is general-purpose and can be used liberally, you can reduce RCS, which is what the study proved, but you need to purpose-build the aircraft for AC if you want VLO.

Exactly my point, AC is not equivalent to stealth jets.

 

[randomradio]

The video is literally from Ukraine
The target in Lahore was not an HQ-9, probably some relay node of LY-80.

The Harop attack in Malir didn't yield anything.

It was presented in mainstream media captioned as Lahore.

First 15 seconds.

We have it on quote from the air chief too.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pak-demanded-ceasefire-world-saw-we-achieved-our-goal-iaf-chief-on-op-sindoor-9388195

"... one SAM (i.e., surface-to-air missile) system was destroyed.

 

[randomradio]

to put it compactly. You're portrayal of FBL as enabling a "direct photon connection" from internal flight controls to satellites or drones (bypassing intermediaries and repeater losses) is fundamentally just incorrect.

External offboard links are wireless by necessity: RF datalinks (MADL ) or free-space optical (laser) communications, these involve signal modulation, beam acquisition/pointing/tracking, atmospheric propagation losses, diffraction limits & beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS)—relays or gateways.

No continuous optical fiber "backbone" extends externally, photon-to-electron transitions are inevitable at transmission/reception points, and losses stem from physics (ex: beam divergence, scintillation), not from being "FBW based".


Again FBL will sure be a stepup, but not a necessity for future high-badwidth data processing and comms.


Current F-35's already use of optical Fibre Channel internally for high-bandwidth sensor fusion is good enough as EXTERNALS will remain wireless via MADL or emerging lasers—no continuous fiber to drones/sats.

What are you talking about? That's not what I'm saying at all. With FBL, we won't have inter-link switching modules. That makes the connection much, much, much faster than using a module with copper. No one is saying anything about free space losses either.

You are looking at sensor data and fire control in isolation, a fighter jet doesn't work like that.

"photon-to-electron transitions are inevitable at transmission/reception points"

That's why you are stuck. With FBL there is no such transition, the receiver is a photon detector, not an antenna. For now, the transition to electron will be conducted for processing, but even that will switch over to photonic computers.

 

[randomradio]

Active Electronic Attack (AEA): The NGJ pod identifies enemy radar signals and generates a precise, high-powered response to disrupt or "cancel" the enemy's ability to track the aircraft.

That statement is extremely general.

But no, the NGJ isn't designed for stealthy operations. The RCS of the Growler becomes too big when carrying those humongous pods which are not designed for stealth in the first place.

It's pointless too. The Growler's job is to hide the strike package, not itself. It offers modified escort, so it won't be operating inside SAM rings in the first place, making any attempt at stealth moot. Now if the strike package is carrying internal hardware for AC, then that's a different story.

Plus, AC is not a "high-powered" response. You don't get AC if you don't exactly match the amplitude of the echo. AC is not jamming, it's not a response. It's a signature reduction method no different from passive stealth. So that statement is referring to jamming. The word cancel in it is to simplify it for the layman.

NGJ isn't sensor-fused anyway. It works in isolation.

Exactly my point, AC is not equivalent to stealth jets.

On Rafale, it provides VLO. On a Super Hornet, maybe it won't. It's about how you design the jet to use it.

AC is not exclusive to the French, but Rafale using AC to get into LO/VLO is specific to Rafale. Your point is the opposite of what it is.

 

[FalconSlayers]

It was presented in mainstream media captioned as Lahore.

First 15 seconds.

We have it on quote from the air chief too.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pak-demanded-ceasefire-world-saw-we-achieved-our-goal-iaf-chief-on-op-sindoor-9388195

"... one SAM (i.e., surface-to-air missile) system was destroyed.

Again, Indian MSM picks up whatever they see on twitter. They were incorrectly posting videos of old coalition strikes on Afghanistan as recent footage too. And again, SAM destruction is a claim that is not verified independently.

 

[randomradio]

Again, Indian MSM picks up whatever they see on twitter. They were incorrectly posting videos of old coalition strikes on Afghanistan as recent footage too. And again, SAM destruction is a claim that is not verified independently.

Okay, I agree that we do not have independent verification. Don't see the point of the air chief lying, 'cause being able to penetrate air bases in depth while forward air defenses are active is a bigger deal.

 

[babablacksheep]

What are you talking about? That's not what I'm saying at all. With FBL, we won't have inter-link switching modules. That makes the connection much, much, much faster than using a module with copper

This is flat-out wrong.


The Kawasaki P1, the only production aircraft in the world using true fly-by-optics for primary flight controls since 2013 and still the only one in 2026, does replaces copper wires with optical fiber,

.But it absolutely requires optical interconnect infrastructure: star couplers, wavelength-division multiplexers, passive optical routers, and fault-tolerant distribution networks to achieve the triplex/quad redundancy, deterministic timing, signal fan-out, and cross-channel monitoring that safety-of-flight certification demands.


You cannot run a flightcontrol system as a simple point-to-point daisy-chain of raw fiber, the P1's own design (documented in Kawasaki technical reviews and JMSDF disclosures) and every historical NASA FLASH program testbed or SAE AIR4982 / AS5653 optical avionics standard explicitly include these optical "modules" (couplers and active/passive switches).



The speed of light advantage of photons over electrons in copper is real, but on aircraft wiring runs of 10–50 m the propagation delay difference is microseconds — negligible compared to the dominant latencies from actuator response, software fusion loops, and redundancy voting.


F-35 already runs its high-bandwidth sensor fusion on a Fibre Channel optical backbone with 32-port switched fabrics aggregating ~24 Gbps; its flight controls stay on deterministic IEEE 1394B electrical buses precisely because full optical switching for primary controls isn't mature enough for certification yet.


Claiming "no modules at all" is wishful thinking at best right now.

No one is saying anything about free space losses either.

You literally opened the original thread by tying FBL directly to "FBL to satellite to drone is a direct connection" and contrasting it with FBW intermediaries.

Free-space losses (atmospheric attenuation, scintillation, beam divergence, pointing jitter) are physics, not optional.

Internal FBL has zero bearing on external wireless links — whether RF (MADL) or free-space laser. You can't wave that away now.

You are looking at sensor data and fire control in isolation, a fighter jet doesn't work like that.

This is projection.


The entire counter has been about integrated loops: the F-35's Integrated Core Processor already fuses aircraft state (INS/air data) directly into the APG-81 radar, DAS, and EOTS using its optical Fibre Channel backbone with sub-10 ms closed-loop motion compensation (Kalman filters, phase/Doppler correction) during exactly the Mach 0.9 zoom-climb scenario you described.

The P1's FBL does the same internally for its sensors. No isolation here, architecture was designed for tight coupling from day one.

That's why you are stuck. With FBL there is no such transition, the receiver is a photon detector, not an antenna. For now, the transition to electron will be conducted for processing, but even that will switch over to photonic computers.

This is the most fundamentally incorrect claim.

In any real FBL system (P1 included): Pilot inceptors output electrical signals----->electro-optic converter turns them into photons.

Fiber carries photons--->photodetector at the flight control computer or actuator performs O/E conversion back to electrons.


The FCC runs on electronic processors for general-purpose logic, redundancy , & control-law computation.

Actuators are electro-hydrostatic or electro-mechanical — they need current to drive valves/motors.

Those E/O and O/E transitions are mandatory, they exist in the P1 today.

The "receiver is a photon detector, not an antenna" confuses internal wired fiber with external wireless comms: antennas are for RF, FBL uses photodetectors but the conversion still happens.


As for "photonic computers" eliminating the electron stage: PhotonDelta's 2026 outlook, DARPA/ONERA photonic accelerator programs, and the latest photonic quantum computing reviews (PsiQuantum, Xanadu, Quandela) show adoption only in niche areas:-->data-center interconnects, LiDAR, telecom, or specific AI optimization tasks.

No safety-critical flight-control computer in any aircraft (or even flight test) runs on all-optical or photonic logic. Certification authorities won't touch it yet because photonic processors lack the general-purpose determinism, error correction, and radiation-hardened maturity required for DO-178C Level A flight controls.

"Soon" is not 2026–2035.

it's aspirational at best right now, no concrete step taken in research that say it will be ready to implement in 6th gen jet in 2035-40+ timeline or even being pursued right now.