Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-35S: News

    Share
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 525
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:26 pm

    HM1199 wrote:Hey guys i have some questions about the SU-35S Very Happy , so when you go and check the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .
    Now the thing i want to know is what is so bad about it? Its radar seems to outrange any US fighter radar we have some data about , whats so bad about it to be called ''sub standard" as they do? this goes for the rest of the systems such as its RWR . The networking capabilities of the SU35s is also a target for their critics , calling them ''basic limited networking" .Whats even weirder is that none of them really gives an argument to support the claims , apart from the ol' reliable ''russia is 20 years behind" .
    can someone please explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    To put it simply it's the "Russia cannot make anything good crowd" trying to argue with these people are pointless. The systems aren't 2- years behind and if they really said that just remind them they are armchair generals and their opinion matters has much as a bag of shit.

    I mean F16.net is FILLd to the brim with fanboys and you cannot have a talk like this with fanboys
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1117
    Points : 1117
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:11 pm

    HM1199 wrote:Hey guys i have some questions about the SU-35S  Very Happy , so when you go and check the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .
    Now the thing  i want to know is  what is so bad about it? Its radar seems to outrange any US fighter radar we have some data about ,  whats so bad about it to be called ''sub standard" as they do? this goes for the rest of the systems such as its RWR . The networking capabilities of the SU35s is also a target for their critics  , calling them ''basic limited networking" .Whats even weirder is that none of them really gives an argument to support the claims , apart from the ol' reliable ''russia is 20 years behind" .
    can someone please  explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    its people who do not know what they are talking about and have no knowledge on both electronics or physics, but talk anyway as if they are experts. Most cannot even explain what subsystems the aircraft has or its actual performance characteristics. They are simply just stupid people acting like children and pretending to be military experts.

    Who cares.

    HM1199

    Posts : 50
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2016-07-03

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  HM1199 on Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:36 pm

    agreed , i always wondered how could they determine such things with no access to information .
    By the way guys , i want to ask , how does the Irbis e compare with AESA radars such as the apg 77 or 63v3 ? what are its advantages and weaknesses compared to those ?
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:46 pm

    HM1199 wrote:agreed , i always wondered how could they determine such things with no access to information .
    By the way guys , i want to ask , how does the Irbis e compare with AESA radars such as the apg 77 or 63v3 ? what are its advantages and weaknesses compared to those ?

    Fanboys don't need information, they group behind some false sense of superiority and that's it. Don't bother.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:23 pm

    HM1199 wrote:Hey guys i have some questions about the SU-35S  Very Happy , so when you go and check the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .
    Now the thing  i want to know is  what is so bad about it? Its radar seems to outrange any US fighter radar we have some data about ,  whats so bad about it to be called ''sub standard" as they do? this goes for the rest of the systems such as its RWR . The networking capabilities of the SU35s is also a target for their critics  , calling them ''basic limited networking" .Whats even weirder is that none of them really gives an argument to support the claims , apart from the ol' reliable ''russia is 20 years behind" .
    can someone please  explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    F-16.net is worst place ever to discuss anything. Bunch of kids most of the time, tho they did have few actual pilots and engineers posting before, not sure what happened with those, i am not active there since forever.

    Su-35 might be abit lacky on integration and data fusion/data sharing compared to some avionic packages from the West but its big step forward from what earlier platforms like Su-27P offered and that is what matters.

    From where the claims are coming? Well they heard it around, saw it on youtube... but chronical lack of consumer products built in Russia on their markets isnt helping either. Image about USSR and Russia is twisted by media on fairly regular basis so... mix all that up. You could write a book on the matter.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:24 pm

    HM1199 wrote:agreed , i always wondered how could they determine such things with no access to information .
    By the way guys , i want to ask , how does the Irbis e compare with AESA radars such as the apg 77 or 63v3 ? what are its advantages and weaknesses compared to those ?
    Its not that they dont have access to information, just that they misinterpret it due to their bias and lofty understanding of how air battle actually works, their heads being filled with lockheed powerpoint presentations rather than sober analysis. As for Irbis, I have no idea, you make the videos, you tell me Very Happy. Anyway, with my limited understanding, I think the russian PESA doesnt have much of a disadvantage or may even be better at actual stealth detection due to increased power and range. As far as I know it is more economical on energy so it doesnt bulky APUs and other equipment that makes US fighters so heavy, preventing them from using their higher thrust advantage.  The main thing that PESA lacks is EW capabilities, giving the need for additional ECM pod equipment which the Su-35 can mount, further nullifying the advantage of AESA.

    I have always wondered if there was any basis in the massive circlejerks western fanboys have over AESA radars, treating thems as some golden standard unatainable by anyone except NATO. The only  thing I see that makes AESA stand out is EW capability. Can you tell me more advantages that make it so superior than PESA?
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:31 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    HM1199 wrote:Hey guys i have some questions about the SU-35S  Very Happy , so when you go and check the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .
    Now the thing  i want to know is  what is so bad about it? Its radar seems to outrange any US fighter radar we have some data about ,  whats so bad about it to be called ''sub standard" as they do? this goes for the rest of the systems such as its RWR . The networking capabilities of the SU35s is also a target for their critics  , calling them ''basic limited networking" .Whats even weirder is that none of them really gives an argument to support the claims , apart from the ol' reliable ''russia is 20 years behind" .
    can someone please  explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    F-16.net is worst place ever to discuss anything. Bunch of kids most of the time, tho they did have few actual pilots and engineers posting before, not sure what happened with those, i am not active there since forever.

    Su-35 might be abit lacky on integration and data fusion/data sharing  compared to some avionic packages from the West but its big step forward from what earlier platforms like Su-27P offered and that is what matters.

    From where the claims are coming? Well they heard it around, saw it on youtube... but chronical lack of consumer products built in Russia on their markets isnt helping either. Image about USSR and Russia is twisted by media on fairly regular basis so... mix all that up. You could write a book on the matter.
    Ive always been perplexed why westerners drool over "data integration". It sounds more like a buzzword than a tangible advantage. I mean, if your aircraft is lacking in flying and weapon performance, how is the fact that your combat data is going to show on 1 display instead of 2 gonna help in the grand scheme of things?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:51 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    HM1199 wrote:agreed , i always wondered how could they determine such things with no access to information .
    By the way guys , i want to ask , how does the Irbis e compare with AESA radars such as the apg 77 or 63v3 ? what are its advantages and weaknesses compared to those ?
    Its not that they dont have access to information, just that they misinterpret it due to their bias and lofty understanding of how air battle actually works, their heads being filled with lockheed powerpoint presentations rather than sober analysis. As for Irbis, I have no idea, you make the videos, you tell me Very Happy. Anyway, with my limited understanding, I think the russian PESA doesnt have much of a disadvantage or may even be better at actual stealth detection due to increased power and range. As far as I know it is more economical on energy so it doesnt bulky APUs and other equipment that makes US fighters so heavy, preventing them from using their higher thrust advantage.  The main thing that PESA lacks is EW capabilities, giving the need for additional ECM pod equipment which the Su-35 can mount, further nullifying the advantage of AESA.

    I have always wondered if there was any basis in the massive circlejerks western fanboys have over AESA radars, treating thems as some golden standard unatainable by anyone except NATO. The only  thing I see that makes AESA stand out is EW capability. Can you tell me more advantages that make it so superior than PESA?

    Its simplier to develop low probability of intercept LPI capability with AESA due to nature of hardware. Hence its more resilient to jamming in theory, but again, its the reciever that you need to worry about when its about jamming.

    What you cant do with current PESA radars is to form multiple beams at different frequencies at the same time and then track all of them. Basically at the same time it can search both land and air, track multiple targets on both, guide missiles and do jamming. This naturally big time depends on radar, but this is what AESA is capable of as idea.

    AESA modules in general are easier to swap so maintenance is alot easier, you dont have only one single amplifier to generate radiation, but 1000-2000 or more of them so they are in general alot harder to be thrown out of order. On PESA if amplifier dies radar is..well done, needs to be taken off and sent to maintenance. On AESA, module dies, noone cares, you can switch it next week.

    PESA radars are heavier, bulkier, generate alot more heat, require extensive cooling solutions some of which require evaporators and special liquids. What AESA array as itself lacks unless steered is maximum scan angle.

    I mean.. people literally wrote books on the matter, but these are just few basic things.

    HM1199

    Posts : 50
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2016-07-03

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  HM1199 on Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:57 pm

    Well yeah i do not think an AESA is overwhelmingly superior to a PESA , they have some advantages such as sensivity but they are not good to the point where PESA 's are ditched out of the game Wink
    Also i'm wondering if the RWR of the SU 35S is capable of dataecting LPI radar can someone answer?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:04 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    HM1199 wrote:Hey guys i have some questions about the SU-35S  Very Happy , so when you go and check the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .
    Now the thing  i want to know is  what is so bad about it? Its radar seems to outrange any US fighter radar we have some data about ,  whats so bad about it to be called ''sub standard" as they do? this goes for the rest of the systems such as its RWR . The networking capabilities of the SU35s is also a target for their critics  , calling them ''basic limited networking" .Whats even weirder is that none of them really gives an argument to support the claims , apart from the ol' reliable ''russia is 20 years behind" .
    can someone please  explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    F-16.net is worst place ever to discuss anything. Bunch of kids most of the time, tho they did have few actual pilots and engineers posting before, not sure what happened with those, i am not active there since forever.

    Su-35 might be abit lacky on integration and data fusion/data sharing  compared to some avionic packages from the West but its big step forward from what earlier platforms like Su-27P offered and that is what matters.

    From where the claims are coming? Well they heard it around, saw it on youtube... but chronical lack of consumer products built in Russia on their markets isnt helping either. Image about USSR and Russia is twisted by media on fairly regular basis so... mix all that up. You could write a book on the matter.
    Ive always been perplexed why westerners drool over "data integration". It sounds more like a buzzword than a tangible advantage. I mean, if your aircraft is lacking in flying  and weapon performance, how is the fact that your combat data is going to show on 1 display instead of 2 gonna help in the grand scheme of things?

    Data fusion and data sharing is a science of its own, belive it or not. There are an actual huge alghoritms, those most complex using elements of AI even to determine which data to show, which to ignore, where to show it, is it going to be HUD, HMS, MFD... it brings data from all aircraft sensors, mixes them, does crossreferencing, throws out data which is clutter, false positives, and then gives away what pilots wants to see.

    Now back in time pilot on radar would see ground reflections, water reflections, big flocks of pigeons, friendly targets without any markings... what you see now is radar picture without all those shits and your friendly targets are auto checked by IFF and reported as such onto your HUD. On P-18 radar if you want to see if target is friendly or enemy you need to "scan" it twice, once to detect it and second time to scan it with engaged IFF pedal, then if target is friendly and transponder answers you get green mark next to it. Just giving this as an example how simple things like that affect overall performance.

    Now, what you mentioned, showing data of similar nature on 2 or 3 different places in cockpit is bad design, why make it easy if it can be complicated type of design. Grouping data for pilot to use is also very important, in combat pilots do not have minutes on disposal rather seconds to make some decisions, many of which depend on data readouts.

    Now data sharing, you need powerful datalink to share everything you pick on your sensors with other platforms around, now the data you share needs to be crossreferenced with their sensors, so they do not get double entries for an example.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 877
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:14 pm

    My understanding was that the Irbis-E is more a PESA/AESA hybrid, with a work around for its mechanical oscillation (of course I've long since lost the source for that). We have an AESA vs PESA thread here: http://www.russiadefence.net/t5532-russian-pesa-and-aesa-radars-history

    And a thread with a bit more info concerning "vs." situations.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4799-su-35s-vs-usaf-fighters-f-22-f-35-f-a-18e-f-f-15
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:17 pm

    HM1199 wrote:Well yeah i do not think an AESA is overwhelmingly superior to a PESA , they have some advantages such as sensivity but  they are not good to the point where PESA 's are ditched out of the game Wink
    Also i'm wondering if the RWR of the SU 35S is capable of dataecting LPI radar can someone answer?

    We do not know, whoever says he does is full of shit. I know many claimed oposite on F-16.net and Indiadefence forum, and i bet that is why you are asking.

    LPIs have very low noise compared to background so it would be quite a challenge. Even if it does detect it, question is if it can decode it or guide missile via such weak noise. RWR is more of a countermeasure rather than "offensive" sensor.

    HM1199

    Posts : 50
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2016-07-03

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  HM1199 on Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:53 pm

    Militarov , i see , so the signal is so weak it is tricky to use it to guide a missile , alright Smile , and does that mean a DRFM jammer is useless vs a LPI radar?

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  medo on Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:17 pm

    Russia have a lot of experiences in building PESA radars. First fighter PESA radar was in MiG-31 and they also use them a long time in SAMs. PESA radars in Russia are very mature technology and Russia choose Irbis PESA radar simply because it was better than any AESA radar in that time. Now as AESA technology become more mature, Russia is creating a new AESA radar for PAK FA which is now well tested.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:21 pm

    medo wrote:Russia have a lot of experiences in building PESA radars. First fighter PESA radar was in MiG-31 and they also use them a long time in SAMs. PESA radars in Russia are very mature technology and Russia choose Irbis PESA radar simply because it was better than any AESA radar in that time. Now as AESA technology become more mature, Russia is creating a new AESA radar for PAK FA which is now well tested.

    Is it possible that for the next Su-35 which will be delivered to the RuAF, they try to put Byelka radar ? Did Sukhoi start building them ? If not they could wait and try to insert Byelka radar on it.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  medo on Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:24 pm

    Isos wrote:
    medo wrote:Russia have a lot of experiences in building PESA radars. First fighter PESA radar was in MiG-31 and they also use them a long time in SAMs. PESA radars in Russia are very mature technology and Russia choose Irbis PESA radar simply because it was better than any AESA radar in that time. Now as AESA technology become more mature, Russia is creating a new AESA radar for PAK FA which is now well tested.

    Is it possible that for the next Su-35 which will be delivered to the RuAF, they try to put Byelka radar ? Did Sukhoi start building them ? If not they could wait and try to insert Byelka radar on it.

    I think it is possible to reshape PAK-FA radar to fit Su-35 nose. But if they will fit it will depend on the contract. Considering that PAK FA will be soon in production, maybe they will keep irbis in Su-35 as it is still one of the best radars.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:47 am

    Hey guys i have some questions about the SU-35S Very Happy , so when you go and check the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .


    He is probably confusing information about the original Su-35 (Su-27M) which first flew in 1988.

    The systems being fitted to the Su-35 are based on the systems for the PAK FA which are pretty much all new and state of the art.

    Think of a hybrid F-15 using F-22 and F-35 systems and equipment.

    can someone please explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    They emerge from ignorance.

    By the way guys , i want to ask , how does the Irbis e compare with AESA radars such as the apg 77 or 63v3 ? what are its advantages and weaknesses compared to those ?

    PESA has many of the advantages of AESA but is simpler and cheaper.

    Electronic scanning has enormous advantages and both share that capability.

    Very simply the PESA has one emitter/receiver, whereas an AESA has thousands.

    In terms of processing a lot of noise can be eliminated at the emitter level with an AESA and each signal can be precisely formulated for the task (ie long range ground scanning or whatever).

    The Russians are working on AESA but until the price and quality of the modules gets to a certain level the much more developed PESA systems are a much more sensible choice.

    In the near future their work on photonic radar might make current systems obsolete.

    The main thing that PESA lacks is EW capabilities, giving the need for additional ECM pod equipment which the Su-35 can mount, further nullifying the advantage of AESA.

    There is huge potential for AESA to be used as an active jammer, but PESA has very small sidelobes so is not that vulnerable to ARMs and jamming.

    [qutoe]Ive always been perplexed why westerners drool over "data integration". It sounds more like a buzzword than a tangible advantage. I mean, if your aircraft is lacking in flying and weapon performance, how is the fact that your combat data is going to show on 1 display instead of 2 gonna help in the grand scheme of things? [/quote]

    Funny really but a good example of sensor integration is the MiG-29 and Su-27 from the 1980s.

    For previous pilots you scan with your radar for targets and if you find one you can launch a radar guided missile at it because the radar guided missiles under your wings look for the reflected energy off the target from your radar so a quick scan of its field of view will allow the missile to see the target and then it can be launched at the target. For an IR guided missile a large circle appears in your HUD and you manouver your aircraft to put the enemy plane inside that large circle (usually about a 20 degree circle). Once the enemy aircraft is in that circle you push a button and the IR guided missile scans its field of view (ie about 20 degrees normally) and when it locks it makes a screeching noise to indicate it has a lock and how good that lock is... the pilot then pulls the trigger and launches the missile.

    For MiG-29 and Su-27 pilots they have a radar and an IRST and a helmet mounted sight.
    Any of these three systems can be used to detect the target and the target can then be handed off to other systems to attack.

    For instance flying with radar off the pilot spots a very low flying small UAV target. He can activate his Helmet mounted sight, which drops a small glass monocle into his line of sight with a blinking crosshair... he can turn the aircraft slightly and look at the target... the IRST and radar will then turn and if selected an R-73 seeker will turn to look at the target. If the target gets a lock with the R-73 the crosshair will stop blinking and become solid... the pilot can squeese the trigger and launch the R-73 to shoot down the UAV. If the pilot wants target information to pass to HQ they can steer the IRST and radar to look at the target based on the helmet mounted sight information... so no scanning is required... both sensors will turn and look at the UAV and in the case of the radar it can be ranged with a simple pulse... with the IRST it will track the target automatically and the laser can be used to get range.

    The pilot can swap between radar and IRST locks at will.


    AESA modules in general are easier to swap so maintenance is alot easier, you dont have only one single amplifier to generate radiation, but 1000-2000 or more of them so they are in general alot harder to be thrown out of order. On PESA if amplifier dies radar is..well done, needs to be taken off and sent to maintenance. On AESA, module dies, noone cares, you can switch it next week.

    PESA radars are heavier, bulkier, generate alot more heat, require extensive cooling solutions some of which require evaporators and special liquids. What AESA array as itself lacks unless steered is maximum scan angle.

    I thought it was the other way around... the AESA has thousands of emitters which are heavy and generate heat... they degrade gracefully (ie you could have hundreds of failed emitters but the radar would still work with less efficiency) whereas the PESA fails completely when the emitter fails.


    Thousands of emitters makes AESAs and order of magnitude more expensive though.

    Think of it in terms of light frequencies... a single bright search light... compared with thousands of smaller LEDs able to change frequency.

    A big bright light will fail when the bulb blows but there is just one bulb to replace.

    An array of LEDs can be used where one or two blow and you wont even notice. Also looking for a target that is blue means changing the LED light to another specific colour might make the Blue target really stand out, but then it might also be looking for red or orange targets so different colour light can be used to make detection easier and more efficient so the lights don't need to be so bright in their search.

    Both are electronically scanned so think of the single bulb PESA as using mirrors to scan its FOV angles at any speed you like, rather than slow mechanical scanning.

    The MiG-31 could hit 6 targets with SARH missiles over an enormous volume of air space.

    Because of the mechanical scanning of the radar on the F-14 it could also hit 6 targets but the only time it was tested AFAIK the vertical separation of the targets was less than 1km... not good if the targets are a Tu-22M3 at 10,000m and two Kh-22Ms at 40,000m altitude...

    LPIs have very low noise compared to background so it would be quite a challenge. Even if it does detect it, question is if it can decode it or guide missile via such weak noise. RWR is more of a countermeasure rather than "offensive" sensor.

    The secret is in the name... Low Probability Intercept... not No Probability Intercept.

    Radar waves are not natural occurrences and for most militaries detecting a radar signal coming from empty space is very suspicious.

    Obviously a weak signal coming from nowhere wont give you much information about what is the threat but it gives you a vector that needs attention... if the same signal is received by several platforms or ground stations then some pretty simple maths can be used to triangulate the source location which can then be searched with a range of sensors including the L band wing mounted radar and IRST on the Su-35 as well as ground based optical and IR stations and long wave radar stations.

    Militarov , i see , so the signal is so weak it is tricky to use it to guide a missile , alright Smile , and does that mean a DRFM jammer is useless vs a LPI radar?

    The intention of LPI is to be a weak signal of a single pulse that most systems might ignore as noise. Using the IRST to find a target and then a radar to range the target would be something very similar. Without the IRST integrated into the aircraft management system you would have to scan the whole sky to find a target and then once the target gives a return signal you would then direct your antenna at the target and send a tracking pulse to determine range and speed etc based on the time the signal takes to return and the Doppler shift of the wave that returns.

    Is it possible that for the next Su-35 which will be delivered to the RuAF, they try to put Byelka radar ? Did Sukhoi start building them ? If not they could wait and try to insert Byelka radar on it.

    They will be in service for more than a decade I would suspect they will make a new antenna based on the technology of the new AESAs but larger to fit the Su-35s nose when the modules are in production in large enough numbers.

    Remember the first few modules will be expensive and there will be lots of duds as they get the production process optimised.

    At $500 per module to fill a 2,000 module array that is a million dollars a radar... in time the cost per module will come down to a few dollars and duds will be much rarer... remember they are making AESA radars on everything from Ka-52K helos and fighter aircraft to ground based SAMs and ships of all sorts... they will need hundreds of millions of modules to be made... for new service items and for replacements as they wear out.

    As I said the production costs will come down... the number of dud modules will come down and production will expand and soon everything will have AESAs on it...

    I would expect they will base their decisions on performance... Irbis is a very capable radar and any new radar will have initial problems... if its performance improves to challenge Irbis then why not... when modules are available and not too expensive...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:55 am

    can someone please explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    Talking to those guys about Su-35s would be like talking to me about American aircraft from WWII. Don't really care.

    I remember having an interesting discussion with an American gentleman who claimed the Soviets owed the Americans because the T-34 was designed by Christie and that their primary fighter at the start of WWII was based on the American GeeBee racer.

    It was just what he had been told by American experts that didn't actually know the truth.

    (BTW Offtopic the Christie suspension was bought for the BT series of light tanks but could not be used on medium tanks without serious modification, so Christie design was used as the basis for the chassis for the T-34 but nothing else, and the Polikarpov I-16 had nothing to do with the GeeBee racer... the latter didn't even have retractable undercarriage or an unbraced wing.)

    If someone tells you about something ask more questions... specific questions to see how much they actually know about the thing they are talking about...

    For example my knowledge of the Sherman largely extends to comparisons with the T-34 and some German impressions of the vehicle (ie tall and burns easily).)


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    HM1199

    Posts : 50
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2016-07-03

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  HM1199 on Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:26 pm

    yeah garry B the su 35 is indeed state of art , its very interesting that things like IRST or passive radar can pick things up then do trigonometry to find from where the stuff is coming , i personnaly belive this right here is one of the things that will enable the su 35 to stand up to f35 and f22 .
    Now speaking of wvr , lets say the su 35 and f22 for example have the same weapons and no HMS , which plane is more maneuverable?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:40 am

    Manouver performance is irrelevant...

    In the old days the key was to get on your enemies tail because his weapons and sensors faced forward and so did yours... being behind him gave you a distinct advantage.

    With thrust vectoring you just point your nose at the target and fire... hit him before he fires and you will survive. Hit him before his weapons hit you and you might survive.

    Needless to say the F-22 and F-35 were optimised for stealth first and everything else second.

    The Su-35 and PAK FA are optimised to find and shoot down stealth aircraft...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    marcellogo

    Posts : 71
    Points : 75
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  marcellogo on Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Hey guys i have some questions about the SU-35S  Very Happy , so when you go and check the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .


    He is probably confusing information about the original Su-35 (Su-27M) which first flew in 1988.

    The systems being fitted to the Su-35 are based on the systems for the PAK FA which are pretty much all new and state of the art.

    Think of a hybrid F-15 using F-22 and F-35 systems and equipment.

    can someone please  explain from where those rediculous claims are emerging?

    They emerge from ignorance.

    By the way guys , i want to ask , how does the Irbis e compare with AESA radars such as the apg 77 or 63v3 ? what are its advantages and weaknesses compared to those ?

    PESA has many of the advantages of AESA but is simpler and cheaper.

    Electronic scanning has enormous advantages and both share that capability.

    Very simply the PESA has one emitter/receiver, whereas an AESA has thousands.

    In terms of processing a lot of noise can be eliminated at the emitter level with an AESA and each signal can be precisely formulated for the task (ie long range ground scanning or whatever).

    The Russians are working on AESA but until the price and quality of the modules gets to a certain level the much more developed PESA systems are a much more sensible choice.

    In the near future their work on photonic radar might make current systems obsolete.

    The main thing that PESA lacks is EW capabilities, giving the need for additional ECM pod equipment which the Su-35 can mount, further nullifying the advantage of AESA.

    There is huge potential for AESA to be used as an active jammer, but PESA has very small sidelobes so is not that vulnerable to ARMs and jamming.

    Ive always been perplexed why westerners drool over "data integration". It sounds more like a buzzword than a tangible advantage. I mean, if your aircraft is lacking in flying and weapon performance, how is the fact that your combat data is going to show on 1 display instead of 2 gonna help in the grand scheme of things?

    Funny really but a good example of sensor integration is the MiG-29 and Su-27 from the 1980s.

    For previous pilots you scan with your radar for targets and if you find one you can launch a radar guided missile at it because the radar guided missiles under your wings look for the reflected energy off the target from your radar so a quick scan of its field of view will allow the missile to see the target and then it can be launched at the target. For an IR guided missile a large circle appears in your HUD and you manouver your aircraft to put the enemy plane inside that large circle (usually about a 20 degree circle). Once the enemy aircraft is in that circle you push a button and the IR guided missile scans its field of view (ie about 20 degrees normally) and when it locks it makes a screeching noise to indicate it has a lock and how good that lock is... the pilot then pulls the trigger and launches the missile.

    For MiG-29 and Su-27 pilots they have a radar and an IRST and a helmet mounted sight.
    Any of these three systems can be used to detect the target and the target can then be handed off to other systems to attack.

    For instance flying with radar off the pilot spots a very low flying small UAV target. He can activate his Helmet mounted sight, which drops a small glass monocle into his line of sight with a blinking crosshair... he can turn the aircraft slightly and look at the target... the IRST and radar will then turn and if selected an R-73 seeker will turn to look at the target. If the target gets a lock with the R-73 the crosshair will stop blinking and become solid... the pilot can squeese the trigger and launch the R-73 to shoot down the UAV. If the pilot wants target information to pass to HQ they can steer the IRST and radar to look at the target based on the helmet mounted sight information... so no scanning is required... both sensors will turn and look at the UAV and in the case of the radar it can be ranged with a simple pulse... with the IRST it will track the target automatically and the laser can be used to get range.

    The pilot can swap between radar and IRST locks at will.


    AESA modules in general are easier to swap so maintenance is alot easier, you dont have only one single amplifier to generate radiation, but 1000-2000 or more of them so they are in general alot harder to be thrown out of order. On PESA if amplifier dies radar is..well done, needs to be taken off and sent to maintenance. On AESA, module dies, noone cares, you can switch it next week.

    PESA radars are heavier, bulkier, generate alot more heat, require extensive cooling solutions some of which require evaporators and special liquids. What AESA array as itself lacks unless steered is maximum scan angle.

    I thought it was the other way around... the AESA has thousands of emitters which are heavy and generate heat... they degrade gracefully (ie you could have hundreds of failed emitters but the radar would still work with less efficiency) whereas the PESA fails completely when the emitter fails.


    Thousands of emitters makes AESAs and order of magnitude more expensive though.

    Think of it in terms of light frequencies... a single bright search light... compared with thousands of smaller LEDs able to change frequency.

    A big bright light will fail when the bulb blows but there is just one bulb to replace.

    An array of LEDs can be used where one or two blow and you wont even notice. Also looking for a target that is blue means changing the LED light to another specific colour might make the Blue target really stand out, but then it might also be looking for red or orange targets so different colour light can be used to make detection easier and more efficient so the lights don't need to be so bright in their search.

    Both are electronically scanned so think of the single bulb PESA as using mirrors to scan its FOV angles at any speed you like, rather than slow mechanical scanning.

    The MiG-31 could hit 6 targets with SARH missiles over an enormous volume of air space.

    Because of the mechanical scanning of the radar on the F-14 it could also hit 6 targets but the only time it was tested AFAIK the vertical separation of the targets was less than 1km... not good if the targets are a Tu-22M3 at 10,000m and two Kh-22Ms at 40,000m altitude...

    LPIs have very low noise compared to background so it would be quite a challenge. Even if it does detect it, question is if it can decode it or guide missile via such weak noise. RWR is more of a countermeasure rather than "offensive" sensor.

    The secret is in the name... Low Probability Intercept... not No Probability Intercept.

    Radar waves are not natural occurrences and for most militaries detecting a radar signal coming from empty space is very suspicious.

    Obviously a weak signal coming from nowhere wont give you much information about what is the threat but it gives you a vector that needs attention... if the same signal is received by several platforms or ground stations then some pretty simple maths can be used to triangulate the source location which can then be searched with a range of sensors including the L band wing mounted radar and IRST on the Su-35 as well as ground based optical and IR stations and long wave radar stations.

    Militarov , i see , so the signal is so weak it is tricky to use it to guide a missile , alright Smile , and does that mean a DRFM jammer is useless vs a LPI radar?

    The intention of LPI is to be a weak signal of a single pulse that most systems might ignore as noise. Using the IRST to find a target and then a radar to range the target would be something very similar. Without the IRST integrated into the aircraft management system you would have to scan the whole sky to find a target and then once the target gives a return signal you would then direct your antenna at the target and send a tracking pulse to determine range and speed etc based on the time the signal takes to return and the Doppler shift of the wave that returns.

    Is it possible that for the next Su-35 which will be delivered to the RuAF, they try to put Byelka radar ? Did Sukhoi start building them ? If not they could wait and try to insert Byelka radar on it.

    They will be in service for more than a decade I would suspect they will make a new antenna based on the technology of the new AESAs but larger to fit the Su-35s nose when the modules are in production in large enough numbers.

    Remember the first few modules will be expensive and there will be lots of duds as they get the production process optimised.

    At $500 per module to fill a 2,000 module array that is a million dollars a radar... in time the cost per module will come down to a few dollars and duds will be much rarer... remember they are making AESA radars on everything from Ka-52K helos and fighter aircraft to ground based SAMs and ships of all sorts... they will need hundreds of millions of modules to be made... for new service items and for replacements as they wear out.

    As I said the production costs will come down... the number of dud modules will come down and production will expand and soon everything will have AESAs on it...

    I would expect they will base their decisions on performance... Irbis is a very capable radar and any new radar will have initial problems... if its performance improves to challenge Irbis then why not... when modules are available and not too expensive...

    Just one precisation.
    Actual radars mounted on Flankers are actually hybrids: antenna elements are powered by a centralized source but act like a separated receiver like on Aesa with all the related perks.

    Such a system has however an advantage over the Aesa : since you have not to couple a separate power source to each antenna element, the radar plate is way lighter and can still be mechanically oriented so to increase its scan sector while AESA radars mounted on actual Usa planes are limited by their fixed mountings to the rather limited ESA area.

    PAK-fa overcome such a limitation by using side and rear mounted plates but I think that mounting them on actual flankers would be simply not rational.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:58 pm

    IDK if this has been discussed before, but can someone explain to me the science behind not equipping the Su-35 with canards, and vice versa for the Su-30? Does TVC compensate for the lack of canards. Once the eurocanards get TVC, will that make them the most agile 4++ gen fighters?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:11 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:IDK if this has been discussed before, but can someone explain to me the science behind not equipping the Su-35 with canards, and vice versa for the Su-30? Does TVC compensate for the lack of canards. Once the eurocanards get TVC, will that make them the most agile 4++ gen fighters?


    I was look this before I saw your question ^^

    Look at 15min 45s



    Eurocanards won't get them, not planned. Su-37 has both.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:50 am

    IDK if this has been discussed before, but can someone explain to me the science behind not equipping the Su-35 with canards, and vice versa for the Su-30?

    Su-30 got them because India wanted them.

    The development of thrust vectoring engines and the improvements in the flight control system meant the Su-35 does not need the Canards.

    The eurocanards need canards because a plane is lifted by its main wing so it needs either another set of surfaces... either tail or canard surfaces to push the tail down or lift it up respectively for takeoff, or it needs a long runway and lots more speed to take off and land like a pure delta like a Mirage 2000.

    Canards are on paper superior because instead of pushing the tail down for takeoff it lifts the nose and also points the nose to where you want to go instead of pushing the tail in the opposite way.

    A canard for the Su-35 would add weight and complication and drag and with full TVC it does not increase manouverability enough to matter.

    They can also effect the pilots view of things around the aircraft too... more so with the big ones on the eurocanards.

    Does TVC compensate for the lack of canards. Once the eurocanards get TVC, will that make them the most agile 4++ gen fighters?

    TVC makes all conventional control surfaces less effective in comparison.

    The thing is however that both the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen have both engines close together or just have one engine. This means they can push the tail up or down or to either side, but in the case of the twin engined models using one engine up and one down will not roll as fast as with a MiG-35 or Su-35 or PAK FA as the Russian aircraft have widely separated engine nozzles so one up and one down results in a very rapid roll rate instantly.

    If you leave controlled flight your ability to control where your nose points is dictated by what angles you can point your engines... conventional control surfaces become useless... only engine thrust vectoring has any effect and the Eurocanards would be at a huge disadvantage... so they would need to maintain conventional flight... in comparison an Su-35 can leave conventional flight and point its nose (and all its sensors and weapons) directly at a target.

    Even with super high off boresight weapons pointing your missiles at the target before you launch them means they fly faster and get there quicker and are more likely to make a hit.

    In comparison a missile pulling a high g turn off the rail to hit a target behind the launch aircraft will burn most of its energy turning and might even be subsonic when it goes in for the kill... and a missile is not an aircraft... its control surfaces are tiny and it needs high flight speed to remain in the air. Slow speed means poor turn rate and no ability to catch up on targets...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Isos on Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:27 pm

    Su-35 may be bought by middle east countries.

    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201702141050655614-russia-rostec-arms/

    Almost destroyed Su-35

    http://www.aeronewstv.com/fr/industrie/aviation-militaire/3743-atterrissage-acrobatique-dun-sukhoi-su-35.html

    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-35S: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:44 am