Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues

Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters551

    Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10408
    Points: 10984
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:40 am

    I am inclined to believe the F-35 does have advanced stealth features compared to F-22 both in planform and materials.

    I would expect F-35 in USAF service will have much better stealth than any exported model, but the focus for the F-35... for the USAF, was not to be super stealthy... they wanted an aircraft that was optimised for air to ground with significant air to air capability.

    Think of it in terms of previous gen aircraft. When Pakistan buys an F-16 it becomes their best fighter aircraft. It still has air to ground capability but primarily they will use it as a fighter first. In the USAF they have F-15Cs which are not able to engage ground targets so when you have air to air patrol missions and air to ground missions if they have F-15Cs and F-16s they will use the F-15Cs for air to air combat and F-16s as bomb trucks. The same aircraft but different roles.

    The F-35 in the USAF will primarily be a stealthy bomb truck. The F-22s will go into a hostile environment first and deal with enemy fighters... this means they will have no space for air to ground weapons of course. F-35s will also be used but their focus will be on attacking communications and HQs... trying to cut the head off the enemy. They will likely also try to deal with long wave radars and sites that threaten them like major SAM sites. At the same time cruise missiles will be used so the air defences will be working to take down the cruise missiles and revealing components of the AD to the stealth aircraft above so they can start picking the system apart.

    Of course the mobility of the Russian systems makes them harder to defeat... but only if that mobility is used.

    The Pantsir-S1 has the biggest advantage of being able to shoot on the move, a 10,000m ceiling and the ability to use sensors other than radar to track targets and engage them, but most modern Russian SAMs can use alternatives to radar to engage targets these days.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 597
    Points: 762
    Join date: 2010-08-20
    Age: 24
    Location: Pakistan

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:06 am

    Think of it in terms of previous gen aircraft. When Pakistan buys an F-16 it becomes their best fighter aircraft. It still has air to ground capability but primarily they will use it as a fighter first
    Rightly said; however on the remaining part: I never had seen that US in the first place had sent their F-22 to take down enemy ADs. It rather prefers to use B-2s & even before that Tomahawk cruise missile fired from sea carriers. This leads one to think that US does practise some precautions in a SAM rich environment & never uses something I.e F-22 whose stealth capability even to US may seem dubious infront of modern SAMs.
    Think it that way when in the film Iron Man 2 genius from the Russian side said that you need not to defeat a GOD but only injure it & people will revolt. Same too can be said about F-22; even if one goes down US is underdog...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10408
    Points: 10984
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:27 am


    Rightly said; however on the remaining part: I never had seen that
    US in the first place had sent their F-22 to take down enemy ADs. It
    rather prefers to use B-2s & even before that Tomahawk cruise
    missile fired from sea carriers.

    I am talking about vs a decent opponent that actually has an operational air force. B-2s are not safe in airspace where aircraft like Mig-29s or Su-27s are operating... even if they can't detect it on radar, they can be vectored to the area based on long wave radar or optical or IR observations and use IRST to close with the subsonic B-2 and shoot it down with IR guided missiles or even guns.

    Cruise missiles can also be dealt with using air power.

    Right now if the US was planning an attack on China or Iran then it would need F-22s to clear the skies of enemy aircraft to allow the B-2s and cruise missiles to get through.

    This leads one to think that US does practise some precautions in a SAM
    rich environment & never uses something I.e F-22 whose stealth
    capability even to US may seem dubious infront of modern SAMs.

    The F-22 was a necessary component of their plans to take down the Soviet air defences. It is not needed against third world countries with little or no air defences.

    The long lead time of development and the access of high tech electronics suggests the wow period when a new technology that would dominate a battlefield might already be over regards a conflict between the US and Russia as Russia is already on its way to put its own version in service that could potentially penetrate NATO air space and do the same to them.

    Think it that way when in the film Iron Man 2 genius from the Russian
    side said that you need not to defeat a GOD but only injure it &
    people will revolt. Same too can be said about F-22; even if one goes
    down US is underdog...

    I think it will be more along the lines of what happened to the M1 Abrams... After Desert Storm it was considered a super tank and nothing the Soviets had could even damage it. RPGs just bounced off or did no damage at all.
    Of course in more recent conflicts against slightly newer Russian kit but still with crap tactics a few were knocked out of operation and its aura of invincibility was peeled back. Still a good tank though, but not by any means perfect. I think it will be the same with the F-22... like most other US stuff... sophisticated and capable but expensive to buy and operate.

    ahmedfire
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 590
    Points: 755
    Join date: 2010-11-11
    Location: egypt

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:59 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:
    interesting article !

    How? The Deadly Question for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

    read that article Garry.. Wink

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10408
    Points: 10984
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:27 am

    First of all Dr Kopp does not like the F-35.

    Second he is talking about some things we really can't confirm... especially the IR guided R-77s and the ramjet versions of the R-77 which AFAIK have not been revealed publicly.

    For all we know they might have large stocks of R-27ETs and want to keep using them rather than develop IR guided versions of new models.

    With the Mig-31 they continued to use R-40TD IR guided missiles because these weapons were optimised for head on long range shots at SR-71 aircraft.
    They might have developed IR guided versions of the R-33 for the same purpose but clearly had enough R-40TDs available for the purpose.
    The R-60s they are seen carrying are much lower performing missiles and would be used against cruise missiles.
    Note the R-40TD does not need a guidance pod as some claim, and has the huge advantage of being designed to be carried at supersonic speed for long periods. Carrying R-60s on the other hand greatly limits top speed of the aircraft.

    Very simply the Americans are not stupid and if they need to send F-35s into places where Su-35s might be operating you can bet your house that they will have all sorts of other supporting aircraft like AWACS and F-22 et al to make sure it is not a fair fight.... or they will fire cruise missiles instead.

    ahmedfire
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 590
    Points: 755
    Join date: 2010-11-11
    Location: egypt

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:16 pm


    Major General Charles R. Davis
    Program Executive Officer
    Joint Strike Fighter Program

    Dear Major General Davis,

    I am responding to your comments published in the 24th February edition of Inside Defense. While I don’t usually reply to ad hominem attacks, I think that in this instance it is in the public interest, and in the interest of the security of the free world, to publicly address your statements.

    General Davis, you publicly lambast the Air Power Australia (APA) analyses. Did you not recall that your Lockheed Martin colleague, Steve O’Bryan, Director of Business Development, used and acknowledged APA’s future threat assessments in his ‘Navy League 2008a.ppt’ briefing? In Slide 7 of that briefing, O’Bryan correctly identifies the future threat as the Su-35BM Flanker E Plus[1] armed with the R-77M Ramjet missile and the ‘double digit’ SAMS. You mentioned the Su-30MKI as the threat being assessed. It seems that Lockheed Martin’s Marketing Department has got it right, and the JSF Project Office has got it wrong. Surely one would expect it to be the other way around?

    While you denigrate APA’s efforts, many draw heavily upon the APA website, which receives over 200,000 ‘hits’ daily, with a monthly information down load rate approaching half a Terabyte. There is a constant stream of correspondence, from many serving and former military personnel, thanking APA for its work and congratulating it on the accuracy, focus, breadth and depth of the content.

    I therefore take issue with your claim that “they [APA] have no concept of the modern warfare and systems of operations and airborne battle systems and coalition ops”. I am puzzled as to how you can make such a statement given the sheer volume of high quality reference material on future air combat posted on the APA website. Have you actually invested the time to study any of the APA published works? You would be well advised to do so.

    APA’s concern about the F-35 is not that it will meet a single Su-30MKI, as you claim, but that it will face a massed attack of advanced air combat fighters in the class of the Su-35BM. Mr. O’Bryan correctly used the Su-35BM as the one to beat in his presentation, not the Su-30MKI.

    Recent variants of the Flanker have an inbuilt data networking system, so each Flanker shares what it knows with its peers. Unlike the Flankers, which have impressive fuel reserves, smaller aircraft like the F-35 are heavily dependent on Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) tankers for persistence, and AWACS for network centricity. The F-35’s dependency on front-aspect stealth for survival forces “nose cold” entry into combat and heavy reliance upon off-board AWACS data for situational awareness, lest it give its position away by using its radar. A few indiscrete sweeps could trigger the sensitive ESM systems of the Flanker E Plus.

    Your Ad Here


    So, the reality is that in an intensive air battle, these so-called ‘assets’ become ‘liabilities’ that must be protected since readily available Russian technology includes ‘AWACS killer’ missiles – such as the 200 nautical mile R-172 and the 160 nautical mile R-37 Arrow. While it is difficult to shoot down a networked Su-35BM, the network centric AWACS and AAR tankers are big, slow, defenceless, lumbering targets.

    In air combat scenarios, I always make the AWACS and AAR tankers the principal targets.

    The attack plan is a simple overwhelming swarm: Offensive Counter Air (OCA) Flankers engage the Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) protecting the AAR tankers and AWACS, while other sections of Flankers simultaneously kill the AAR tankers and AWACS. The fuel and missile payload advantage of the Flanker over the F-35 makes this easy to do.

    A probable scenario over vast areas of the Pacific Ocean where such air battles might rage, is that after the tankers are dropped, the F-35s exhaust their fuel and fall into the drink.

    If you fail to recognise the vulnerability of AWACS and AAR aircraft, and the risks in heavy dependency upon these exposed ‘assets’, then any reasonable person might ask “who is the one who does not understand future air warfare?”.

    This brings me to the subject of ‘reference threats’. Your assessments appear to be focused on threats that are currently deployed, while excluding those that the F-35 will actually face when it eventually reaches Initial Operational Capability (IOC). As I recall, you claim the F-35 is supposed to maintain air superiority over the next several decades.

    The air combat ‘reference threats’ in the reliably foreseeable future (2015-2020) are represented by the Su-35BM Flanker E Plus, the MiG-35 Fulcrum, advanced SAM-based integrated defences comprising the SA-15, SA-19, SA-20, SA-21, SA-22, and SA-23, supported by the new sensors such as passive emitter locating systems, and active phased array (AESA) VHF metric and L-band decimetric wavelength radars specifically designed to counter aircraft ‘stealthed’ against X-band centimetric wavelength radars. Look closely at Steve O’Bryan’s brief – he put these SAMs, the Su-35BM and the R-77M Ramjet (RVV-AE-PD) front-and-centre as the ‘reference threats’ [2].

    Dr Kopp has used this ‘reference threat’ approach to developing Air Power Australia analyses. His technical knowledge of Russian SAM systems and radars is encyclopaedic, and it has been a deliberate strategy of his to conduct research and publish a comprehensive database of these threat systems on the Air Power Australia website. He is also an experienced engineer and much of his doctoral thesis dealt with the design of AESA radars. He cannot be simply written off as a ‘mere academic’.

    So, when you made the derisory comment, “That's a very 1950s-type of mindset”, you would have been more accurate to use a 2015 date. An informed observer might reasonably conclude that the Air Power Australia analyses are focused in time much closer to 2050 than 1950.

    The JSF’s combat effectiveness is totally dependent on the thesis that ‘you cannot see me, therefore you cannot kill me’. If this premise is proven to be false by the standard due diligence process, like testing and evaluating the JSF against representative threats, then the consequence is the conclusion that the F-35 fails to meet the standards required of a future air combat aircraft.

    However, the glacial pace of development of the F-35 appears to have missed this crucial aspect in its DT&E program, and you must now rely on simulations alone to make your evaluations.

    Lockheed Martin recently conceded, refer to Janes Defence Weekly, that their air combat simulations failed to examine the full spectrum of engagements with aircraft like the Su-35BM. They also disclosed that 1990s technology, Sukhoi Su-30MKI, was used to represent Flanker capabilities.

    This choice is a fatal flaw in assessing the F-35’s capability – the Su-30MKI is not the future air combat threat – the much newer and more capable Su-35BM and the MiG-35 are. Surprisingly, no mention is even made of the potential of Sukhoi’s planned stealthy PAK-FA to overmatch the F-35.

    In low-observable operations, the F-35 will likely carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles and operational planners must make an agonising choice between the long range AIM-120 and the close combat AIM-9X missiles. This is a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ decision.

    If four AIM-120s are carried and they don’t kill all enemy fighters, then the inevitable result will be that the much faster Sukhois and/or MiGs will run the defenceless F-35s down and kill them from close range with R-73/74 missiles or GSh-301 gunfire.

    If two AIM-120s are dropped for two AIM-9Xs, then the Beyond-Visual-Range capability is halved, increasing the chance of the F-35s being run down and engaged within-visual-range (WVR) by the Sukhois, which enjoy a substantial advantage in energy, height, speed, agility, range and number of missile shots available.

    The Lockheed Martin briefing cited by Janes exposed a further serious defect in these F-35 simulations, which is the unrepresentative 72 percent / 31 percent / 7 percent mix between Beyond Visual Range / transitional / close combat engagements. With only four missiles and inferior egress speeds, deadly ‘end game’ WVR engagements are more likely than BVR engagements.

    Where have you addressed the inevitable situation where the F-35 JSF runs out of missiles, or gas, or both, and must disengage and head for home with a super cruising Su-35BM, renowned for its large fuel reserves, rapidly closing for a 6 o’clock shot?

    Air Power Australia analyses are based on scientific method evaluations of future air combat and, not surprisingly, reach the same conclusions as did the RAND study entitled ‘The Future of Air Combat’. You know the one – it is the prestigious work that resulted in Dr John Stillion losing his job for making this perceptive assessment:

    ‘F-35A is “Double Inferior” relative to modern Russian/Chinese fighter designs in visual range combat Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, and inferior sustained turn capability. Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.’

    Your incorrect and misleading public statements only serve to demonstrate that it is you who lack the necessary understanding of the likely threats that will be in the Asia-Pacific region when the JSF becomes operational some time after 2015.

    You have also fallen into the trap of the ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ syndrome sometimes seen in simulation studies, by misrepresenting the future threat as the Su-30MKI, when in reality the networked, super-cruising, digital Su-35BM with a massive 20 Kilowatt radar and an onboard arsenal of missiles will be the air combat aircraft the Lightning II must engage. At least the LockMart sales boys got it right.

    As a former F-15 flight commander, and a weapons and tactics officer, you should know the likely outcome of a massed air battle of F-35s versus Su-35BMs. But if you cannot tell the difference between a Flanker E Plus and a Flanker H, the results will be ugly.

    Sincerely,

    WGCDR C. L. Mills (Retd), AM, BSc (Physics), MSc (USAFIT)
    Air Combat Analyst, Air Power Australia

    http://www.defpro.com/news/details/5861/

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10408
    Points: 10984
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:30 am

    I didn't say Kopp was wrong, but he is biased against the F-35.

    He loves the F-111.
    ]He loves the F-22.
    He respects the Su-34 and Su-35 as being the only real modern equivalents available now.

    All I am saying is that his assumptions about IR guided future versions of Russian AAMs have a grounding in reality because the R-27 family is perhaps the most modular family of AAMs ever made. There are two rocket motor options which can be used with any seeker combination which doubles the available missile options, plus the range of seekers from SARH, ARH, IR, passive radar homing, through to special models for older fighters like the Mig-21-98 and Mig-23-98, and a special SARH model for use over water for Su-33s, now that is 6 seeker types and the combination of two rocket motors means 12 motor seeker options already. Room for growth include IIR seeker models, and one model I have heard a rumour about that uses a seeker that can detect burnt fuel using the same technique as WWII diesel sniffer technology used to hunt diesel subs that would guide to a target homing in on its engine exhaust.

    Based on this it is not a huge stretch to suggest IIR guided versions of rocket motor powered R-77 and ramjet powered R-77s I guess.

    I still think that the US will not send F-35s into airspace guarded by Su-35s and late model SAMs without sending in F-22s and cruise missiles and UCAVs first.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 1687
    Points: 1737
    Join date: 2010-10-24
    Location: Slovenia

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:12 pm

    I didn't say Kopp was wrong, but he is biased against the F-35.

    He loves the F-111.
    ]He loves the F-22.
    He respects the Su-34 and Su-35 as being the only real modern equivalents available now.

    All I am saying is that his assumptions about IR guided future versions of Russian AAMs have a grounding in reality because the R-27 family is perhaps the most modular family of AAMs ever made. There are two rocket motor options which can be used with any seeker combination which doubles the available missile options, plus the range of seekers from SARH, ARH, IR, passive radar homing, through to special models for older fighters like the Mig-21-98 and Mig-23-98, and a special SARH model for use over water for Su-33s, now that is 6 seeker types and the combination of two rocket motors means 12 motor seeker options already. Room for growth include IIR seeker models, and one model I have heard a rumour about that uses a seeker that can detect burnt fuel using the same technique as WWII diesel sniffer technology used to hunt diesel subs that would guide to a target homing in on its engine exhaust.

    Based on this it is not a huge stretch to suggest IIR guided versions of rocket motor powered R-77 and ramjet powered R-77s I guess.

    I still think that the US will not send F-35s into airspace guarded by Su-35s and late model SAMs without sending in F-22s and cruise missiles and UCAVs first.

    In my opinion Kopp have some excellent articles, but you must read it with reserve, because I have a filling he write more as a lobbist against F-35, although his thesis could be correct.

    It is correct, that US will not send F-35 alone in war, but also Su-35 will not work alone, but with AWACSs, ground based radars and passive sensors, SAMs and also with Mig-35 and PAK-FA.

    The chances, where F-35 and Su-35BM could fight alone, are in wars, where Russia and US will not be involved, like for example between Venezuela and Columbia or similar.

    I also wonder in what altitude will F-35 and F-22 have to fly, when they want to penetrate Russian or Chinese air space. If they fly high, they will be exposed to long range SAMs and fighter planes, also EW radars and passive sensors could see them in longer distance, if they fly low, they will be exposed to AA guns and MANPADS, which will negate their stealth caracteristics.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10408
    Points: 10984
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:23 am

    In my opinion Kopp have some excellent articles, but you must read it
    with reserve, because I have a filling he write more as a lobbist
    against F-35, although his thesis could be correct.

    I agree. His technical information is excellent, but he has a chip on his shoulder about the F-35, and I think it is largely because it is the F-35 that will replace "His" F-111s. The problem is that in many areas like range and payload and speed the F-35 is lacking. Coincidently range and payload and speed is something the Su-34 and Su-35 have and in many ways are comparable to the F-111 in its primary role. The Su-35 in many ways is an example of perhaps what he thinks the F-111 could have been with a large AESA radar and long range AAMs...

    It is correct, that US will not send F-35 alone in war, but also Su-35
    will not work alone, but with AWACSs, ground based radars and passive
    sensors, SAMs and also with Mig-35 and PAK-FA.

    Along with the obvious if there is such a conflict between Russia and the US then nukes will decide the outcome... not fighter aircraft.

    I also wonder in what altitude will F-35 and F-22 have to fly, when they
    want to penetrate Russian or Chinese air space. If they fly high, they
    will be exposed to long range SAMs and fighter planes, also EW radars
    and passive sensors could see them in longer distance, if they fly low,
    they will be exposed to AA guns and MANPADS, which will negate their
    stealth caracteristics.

    Even the B-2 will fly low over Russia, while all aircraft would prefer to fly high because it is good for range and speed and it means you have the high ground to fire down on your opponents. The problem is that they have a lot of capable mobile radar systems, many of which can track marble sized targets at high altitude... there are not many marble sized targets flying around at high altitude at high speed.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 1687
    Points: 1737
    Join date: 2010-10-24
    Location: Slovenia

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:08 pm

    Even the B-2 will fly low over Russia, while all aircraft would prefer to fly high because it is good for range and speed and it means you have the high ground to fire down on your opponents. The problem is that they have a lot of capable mobile radar systems, many of which can track marble sized targets at high altitude... there are not many marble sized targets flying around at high altitude at high speed.
    [quote]

    I think modern air force and air defense will force enemy air force to fly low, when they want to penetrate in your air space, that they won't be detected to quickly. In that case stealth planes will be very vulnerable to AA guns and MANPADs.

    Anyone know, how much is modernized PESA radar Zaslon from Mig-31BM comparable with Irbis in Su-35 or Bars from Su-30MKI? If it is somehow similar, than even Mig-31BM could be serious opponent to F-35.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10408
    Points: 10984
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:41 am

    With the new air and space defence organisation taking over from the Air Force in scanning the skies and space for incoming conventional and nuclear threats it will be interesting to see whether they start spending real money on their assets. I would expect it wont all go on radars and command centres.
    They will be the primary operator of the Mig-31 and if they have a decent budget we might see by 2020 a Mig-31 with a huge AESA and upgraded systems... and perhaps a longer term replacement on the drawing board with some stealth features but a long flight range, high speed, lots of large heavy missiles, huge powerful radar...

    ahmedfire
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 590
    Points: 755
    Join date: 2010-11-11
    Location: egypt

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:20 pm

    Very simply the Americans are not stupid and if they need to send F-35s into places where Su-35s might be operating you can bet your house that they will have all sorts of other supporting aircraft like AWACS and F-22 et al to make sure it is not a fair fight.... or they will fire cruise missiles instead.

    right,jsf is strong only beside f22..
    israel will get jsf ,so my view that egypt should purchase su35bm,,it can strongly face f35...

    isarel awacs cold be defeated by r172




    ahmedfire
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 590
    Points: 755
    Join date: 2010-11-11
    Location: egypt

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:46 pm

    A much more interesting disclosure was the
    demonstrator for an L-Band AESA, embedded
    in the leading edges of a Flanker wing. This
    provides a potentially effective counter-stealth
    sensor against designs like the F-35 series, but
    also potentially high power jamming against Link
    16 and GPS channels, as well as embedded IFF
    capabilities.



    any one can analyze the red words above ?
    did he mean jamming iff ?!!

    IronsightSniper
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 509
    Points: 538
    Join date: 2010-09-26
    Location: California, USA

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:23 am

    No, the comma separates the IFF part, so he means that the L-Band AESA will jam Link-16 and GPS channels, while having IFF capabilities.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4018
    Points: 4368
    Join date: 2010-05-08
    Age: 38
    Location: India

    Re: Su-35 Bridges Gap between 5th Generation Fighters

    Post  Austin on Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:59 pm

    I just wonder how could they jam the Link 16 datalink which are encrypted and narrow band communication , you really have to be between the datalink to be able to jam it.

      Current date/time is Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:38 am