Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
So basically what I've understood so far is that Su-35 is the next phase in Flanker development. Brings back the original T:W ratio, pre TVC and adds the latest gen Russian avionics for catching up to VLO target proliferation
+113
galicije83
lancelot
limb
Backman
flamming_python
lyle6
Finty
Scorpius
william.boutros
owais.usmani
LMFS
Gomig-21
mnztr
walle83
andalusia
PhSt
ATLASCUB
marat
nero
dino00
Rodion_Romanovic
jaguar_br
ultimatewarrior
Big_Gazza
Labrador
Tingsay
HUNTER VZLA
Hole
AMCXXL
iwanz
Benya
zeus2
franco
marcellogo
HM1199
KomissarBojanchev
miketheterrible
KiloGolf
kopyo-21
hoom
Book.
SeigSoloyvov
Berkut
AK-Rex
KoTeMoRe
Manov
Zivo
par far
Neutrality
Isos
GunshipDemocracy
max steel
zg18
sheytanelkebir
indochina
mutantsushi
PapaDragon
ult
OminousSpudd
JohninMK
rtech
Mike E
Project Canada
Cucumber Khan
collegeboy16
Svyatoslavich
Dorfmeister
NickM
higurashihougi
medo
kvs
Werewolf
Firebird
Stealthflanker
nemrod
Giulio
RTN
AlfaT8
Hannibal Barca
Regular
Morpheus Eberhardt
Sujoy
partizan
BlackArrow
magnumcromagnon
etaepsilonk
SOC
mack8
sepheronx
calripson
Sancho
eridan
ali.a.r
George1
TheArmenian
TR1
Russian Patriot
Cyberspec
KRATOS1133
AbsoluteZero
ahmedfire
Kysusha
Viktor
IronsightSniper
Aegean
GarryB
SerbNationalist
Austin
Sukhoi37_Terminator
levon1981
Turk1
Vladislav
Admin
117 posters
Su-35S: News
Sujoy- Posts : 2312
Points : 2472
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत
Gomig-21
Gomig-21- Posts : 663
Points : 665
Join date : 2016-07-17
GarryB wrote:Its big size means a big radar and also IRST sensor as well as wing mounted L band AESA radar system for detecting stealthy targets.
I just recently read about this amazing AESA L-band WING-MOUNTED radar on the Su-35S and was blown away! That is so innovative and what an advantage when you supplement the powerful Erbis-E radar with this one.
I do have a couple of questions for you or anyone else who cares to indulge, if you don't mind. Is this wing-mounted AESA radar a standard feature on all Su-35S' including export models? And if so, if it's capable of building such an innovative and narrow design to fit in a leading wing edge, why hasn't Russia been able to build a standard, radome-mounted AESA radar for this aircraft by now? What has been the difficulty? My guess is it would be the same one that ends up on the Su-57 so they must be working on one?
Su-35S L-Band Wing Radar
Role: Radar, FCR, Air-to-Air & Air-to-Surface, Medium-Range
Max Range: 222.2 km
AESA geometrical field of regard, assuming a mainlobe beam steering angle of ±50° off the array boresight. Single plane monopulse precision angle tracking is feasible in the volume covered simultaneously by both arrays
L-Band AESA – Image: ausairpower.net
N036 Byelka radar – N036B-1-01 in the wings – N036B-1-01, 358 modules
L-Band AESA – Image: sinodefenceforum.com
ahmedfire- Posts : 2134
Points : 2314
Join date : 2010-11-11
Location : The Land Of Pharaohs
Yes it's open for export . i guess cost was the main issue for Russians to develop the AESA but now they are working on it.
L band between 1.0 GHz and 2.0 GHz, with wavelengths between 0.3 metres and 0.15 metres is good against low signature aircraft.
Detection range is variable depending on the target type and gain and power , but i doubt it can reach to 222 km .
For 1M² target the max range could be around 120 km .
L band between 1.0 GHz and 2.0 GHz, with wavelengths between 0.3 metres and 0.15 metres is good against low signature aircraft.
Detection range is variable depending on the target type and gain and power , but i doubt it can reach to 222 km .
For 1M² target the max range could be around 120 km .
Gomig-21 likes this post
Isos- Posts : 11307
Points : 11277
Join date : 2015-11-06
I doubt those ranges. Ground L band radars like the p-18 have huge antennas, much more power than this radar and reach no more than 400km.
Gomig-21 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 39068
Points : 39564
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The point of the L band radar is to see stealth targets, which are targets designed to be difficult to detect in X and Ku bands... which are high frequencies often used for targeting and tracking.
Think of the problem as being the same as with camouflaging a soldier. You use colours on the Soldiers uniform and equipment to break up his shape so while he is not invisible he becomes very hard to see for the human eye.
L band stealth uses a frequency that the camouflage colours don't work in... camouflage colours are visible colours so to counter camouflage in this way using a different colour frequency you would use a thermal imager for instance.
Using binoculars to spot targets at 100km range is difficult because the magnification and detail level you would need to be able to spot the target would be very high so to scan the entire volume of airspace at 100km range down to that detail level would be incredibly slow and if you do it fast you will miss the camouflaged target.
Using L band in this case is not switching to thermals only and getting rid of the binoculars... it is using a thermal sight to find the hot spots... the bodies... when used together with binoculars the hot spots on the thermal camera attract your attention but you use the nose radar to zoom right in and carefully examine the area where the hotspot on the thermal is located.
It greatly reduces the volume of space you need to look to find targets and you can use high power settings over small areas... in fact you could also use your IRST too to look for the camouflaged target together with concentrated high power radar beams.
Other aircraft operating together with you can operate radar silent and detect reflections as they are redirected away from your radar but could be detected from different angles too.
Think of the problem as being the same as with camouflaging a soldier. You use colours on the Soldiers uniform and equipment to break up his shape so while he is not invisible he becomes very hard to see for the human eye.
L band stealth uses a frequency that the camouflage colours don't work in... camouflage colours are visible colours so to counter camouflage in this way using a different colour frequency you would use a thermal imager for instance.
Using binoculars to spot targets at 100km range is difficult because the magnification and detail level you would need to be able to spot the target would be very high so to scan the entire volume of airspace at 100km range down to that detail level would be incredibly slow and if you do it fast you will miss the camouflaged target.
Using L band in this case is not switching to thermals only and getting rid of the binoculars... it is using a thermal sight to find the hot spots... the bodies... when used together with binoculars the hot spots on the thermal camera attract your attention but you use the nose radar to zoom right in and carefully examine the area where the hotspot on the thermal is located.
It greatly reduces the volume of space you need to look to find targets and you can use high power settings over small areas... in fact you could also use your IRST too to look for the camouflaged target together with concentrated high power radar beams.
Other aircraft operating together with you can operate radar silent and detect reflections as they are redirected away from your radar but could be detected from different angles too.
Gomig-21 likes this post
Isos- Posts : 11307
Points : 11277
Join date : 2015-11-06
L band is less impacted by stealth but is still impacted. The f-22 may have 0.01m2 or whatever they say in x band and something like 0.9 or 1m2 in L band that is still low and no radar will spot it at max range.
The advantage is that to stay stealthy f-22 or any other jet will have to turn off its radar and rely on RWR. But su-35 can also turn off its irbis and rely on the L band which RWR won't be able to track, detect the presence yes but not track.
The advantage is that to stay stealthy f-22 or any other jet will have to turn off its radar and rely on RWR. But su-35 can also turn off its irbis and rely on the L band which RWR won't be able to track, detect the presence yes but not track.
LMFS- Posts : 5102
Points : 5098
Join date : 2018-03-03
Isos wrote:But su-35 can also turn off its irbis and rely on the L band which RWR won't be able to track, detect the presence yes but not track.
Do you have evidence about that? Based on the (little) information I have found about the concrete characteristics of advanced EW/ESM systems, there is no reason I know for which L band emitter location should not be possible for them. The wavelength in such band is not so big that appropriate antennas cannot be placed on a fighter-sized platform.
Isos- Posts : 11307
Points : 11277
Join date : 2015-11-06
LMFS wrote:Isos wrote:But su-35 can also turn off its irbis and rely on the L band which RWR won't be able to track, detect the presence yes but not track.
Do you have evidence about that? Based on the (little) information I have found about the concrete characteristics of advanced EW/ESM systems, there is no reason I know for which L band emitter location should not be possible for them. The wavelength in such band is not so big that appropriate antennas cannot be placed on a fighter-sized platform.
Just my opinion. I'm not an expert.
I compare with ground based radar. Even with their huge antennas, their precision is not that good.
Fighters don't have that much space inside them. Their RWR receiver should be able to detect the L band but I doubt it gives them the exact location. Against x band radars, modern RWR allow to even guide an ARH missile on them passively. That's why RWR are so important, even more than radars.
Another exemple is the jammers. Against x babd radars you needs small pods but against surveillance radars you need the big one. That also means other jets can't jam su-35's L band radar.
However I saw a test of a chinese kh-31 destroying a ground surveillance radar. Maybe I'm wrong.
Gomig-21- Posts : 663
Points : 665
Join date : 2016-07-17
ahmedfire wrote:Yes it's open for export . i guess cost was the main issue for Russians to develop the AESA but now they are working on it.
L band between 1.0 GHz and 2.0 GHz, with wavelengths between 0.3 metres and 0.15 metres is good against low signature aircraft.
Detection range is variable depending on the target type and gain and power , but i doubt it can reach to 222 km .
For 1M² target the max range could be around 120 km .
So I asked the (pretty well-respected) fella who had posted this information on another forum to provide me with a link that told him the wing-mounted AESA had that 222 km range and he gave me this, but it doesn't provide any numerical distance for the radar except saying this:
The Su-35S also has two AESA L-band radars in the wing extensions, the N035L, these AESA radars have as their main function, detect Stealth aircraft (LO and VLO), in addition to acting as EW (jamming) for the enemy communications and as long-range IFF and many other functions, all this at great distances, in addition to being able to geolocate them
https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/sukhoi-su-35-flanker-e/2410/
Whatever "great distances" means is left out. So not sure yet where he got the 222 km range but AESA radars tend to have longer ranges than PESA despite their sizes. Still, I am in agreement that it is a bit too much and closer to what you said, around 120km.
I also think it's great that the IRBIS-E is a hybrid PESA/AESA with an astronomical range.
GarryB- Posts : 39068
Points : 39564
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I doubt those ranges. Ground L band radars like the p-18 have huge antennas, much more power than this radar and reach no more than 400km.
The L band AESA array they are using wasn't designed and made 50 years ago.
The reason they chose L band is because stealth techniques are less effective in such frequencies... so instead of a 20m wide fighter plane appearing to have a RCS of 0.1m in X band, it might be 5m in L band, which is plenty.
They have a ground based radar family for detecting stealth targets that uses three separate radar antennas that include long wave and short wave radar types that are all used together to detect targets.
The short wave radar is best for accuracy and non stealth targets but the longer wave radars are better with stealthy targets... each on their own would be useful, but combining them together makes a further improvement in performance and capacity.
The Su-35 and Su-57 were intended from the outset to be able to engage stealth targets including aircraft and munitions and weapons. They were designed from the outset to be able to detect the presence of stealthy targets and work together with other assets to defeat them.
L band is less impacted by stealth but is still impacted. The f-22 may have 0.01m2 or whatever they say in x band and something like 0.9 or 1m2 in L band that is still low and no radar will spot it at max range.
It can't track stealthy targets... it is an array with one vertical element... it is more a stealth target detector that gives a bearing to scan for the actual target... scan in IR and X and Ku band radar using the IRST and nose mounted radar of the Su-35 and Su-57. The band it covers includes the datalinks used by HATO so it can detect datalink communication between aircraft and the missiles they have launched like AMRAAM, and also between aircraft including AWACS and ground nodes like ships or vehicles in a passive mode...
The advantage is that to stay stealthy f-22 or any other jet will have to turn off its radar and rely on RWR. But su-35 can also turn off its irbis and rely on the L band which RWR won't be able to track, detect the presence yes but not track.
Without an array then the detection of an Su-35 or Su-57 scanning for stealthy aircraft or weapons would be non directional... they could tell it is operating but cannot locate the direction it is coming from... making detection useless because the same sensor would also be tripped by datalink communication within HATO via AWACS or AMRAAM missiles.
Do you have evidence about that? Based on the (little) information I have found about the concrete characteristics of advanced EW/ESM systems, there is no reason I know for which L band emitter location should not be possible for them. The wavelength in such band is not so big that appropriate antennas cannot be placed on a fighter-sized platform.
As Russia introduces stealth aircraft and weapons they will likely have to start doing that, but until they do it wont be much use... They probably already have such elements incorporated in their radar to allow datalink communications with AWACS and missiles fired.
Even with their huge antennas, their precision is not that good.
Easily good enough to get an IIR guided missile closer enough to home in on and kill a stealthy target.
Another exemple is the jammers. Against x babd radars you needs small pods but against surveillance radars you need the big one. That also means other jets can't jam su-35's L band radar.
If jamming L band was so easy then it would not be used for datalinks...
Whatever "great distances" means is left out. So not sure yet where he got the 222 km range but AESA radars tend to have longer ranges than PESA despite their sizes. Still, I am in agreement that it is a bit too much and closer to what you said, around 120km.
The Russians stopped using things on their own decades ago... they combine MMW radar and CM wave radar and EO systems and L band radar and VHS radar and all sort of other assets in their detection capabilities... but they don't just use them separately... a thermal image of a target is nice because a human stands out because of their body warmth, but even the best quality thermal imager doesn't have great resolution so combining a thermal image with a digital video image makes humans stand out but gives a high quality image of a human that would allow positive ID.
NEBO combines different radars operating at different frequencies to create a data fusion of information more useful than each of the three different types could supply on their own.
This is a rendering of a battery ..the VHF-band component is to the right of the image, the S/C-band component is on the left of the image, the L-band component in the foreground, information from all three vehicles is combined in a data fusion system that would not be nearly as effective if any of those components were missing...
Gomig-21 likes this post
ahmedfire- Posts : 2134
Points : 2314
Join date : 2010-11-11
Location : The Land Of Pharaohs
Whatever "great distances" means is left out. So not sure yet where he got the 222 km range but AESA radars tend to have longer ranges than PESA despite their sizes. Still, I am in agreement that it is a bit too much and closer to what you said, around 120km.
We don't know exactly the performance characteristics or the cardinal design parameters so no one can exactly say the correct range .
Kopp has a good technical background
Gomig-21 likes this post
LMFS- Posts : 5102
Points : 5098
Join date : 2018-03-03
Isos wrote:
I compare with ground based radar. Even with their huge antennas, their precision is not that good.
Ok I see, the catch is that ESM suites don't need to generate a very narrow beam as a radar does, they can use not an array but a much simpler set of antennas to determine the emitter's location based on phase difference between the signals received.
Fighters don't have that much space inside them. Their RWR receiver should be able to detect the L band but I doubt it gives them the exact location. Against x band radars, modern RWR allow to even guide an ARH missile on them passively. That's why RWR are so important, even more than radars.
True, they are very accurate. The AN/ALR-94 on F-22 is claimed to find an emitter with a precision of 2ºx2º. Information about the bands covered by current ESM systems is classified, but given the wavelength (0.15 - 0.3 m), it is not difficult to place an antenna in the wings or tails of a fighter.
The F-35 indeed reports different bands (2, 3, 4 and future 5) covered by the AN/ASQ239 and "broadband" RWR, whatever that means, since it is project-specific terminology. Since L-band radars are common in AD systems, it would make sense to have capability to work with such frequencies. The problem previously with meter and decameter bands, where antenna size really gets difficult to handle.
Previous systems already covered such frequencies and actually much lower, up to UHF and VHF:
ASQ-213 small sized pod for the F-16 reached 500 Mhz
USQ-113 on the EA-6B well down to 20 MHz:
And of course, the L-band arrays in Su-35 and Su-57 show that a moderate number of elements working on that frequency can also be incorporated even as a radar. Much easier so for ESM/ECM suites.
BTW, this link unofficially reports the frequencies covered by AN/ASQ-239 on the F-35 as 2-20 GHz, that would exclude L band, but I find it questionable, given the types of threats the plane should consider:
https://armadainternational.com/2019/10/lightning-reflexes/
Another exemple is the jammers. Against x babd radars you needs small pods but against surveillance radars you need the big one. That also means other jets can't jam su-35's L band radar.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure. Russian planes can do that, so other similarly sized planes should be capable too.
MALD is claimed to operate in bands A to J, even when it is not a powerful jammer but rather a decoy, its small size should indicate what is technically possible
Then comes the new low frequency jammer currently under development as an answer against VHF radars
BTW, seeing these developments and diagrams like this says everything one needs to know about how stealth is stealth in reality, when confronted with low frequency radars:
However I saw a test of a chinese kh-31 destroying a ground surveillance radar. Maybe I'm wrong.
Anti-radiation missiles have trouble with very low frequency radars (again this is beyond L band), but this is being addressed too:
https://www.navysbir.com/n10_3/N103-204.htm
The AGM-88C HARM is reported as covering 500-20,000 MHz, consistently with the capabilities of the ASQ-213 targeting pod mentioned above.
Gomig-21 likes this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 663
Points : 665
Join date : 2016-07-17
GarryB wrote:
The Russians stopped using things on their own decades ago... they combine MMW radar and CM wave radar and EO systems and L band radar and VHS radar and all sort of other assets in their detection capabilities... but they don't just use them separately... a thermal image of a target is nice because a human stands out because of their body warmth, but even the best quality thermal imager doesn't have great resolution so combining a thermal image with a digital video image makes humans stand out but gives a high quality image of a human that would allow positive ID.
NEBO combines different radars operating at different frequencies to create a data fusion of information more useful than each of the three different types could supply on their own.
This is a rendering of a battery ..the VHF-band component is to the right of the image, the S/C-band component is on the left of the image, the L-band component in the foreground, information from all three vehicles is combined in a data fusion system that would not be nearly as effective if any of those components were missing...
That was a heck of a post, Gary! Thanks for all that information.
So what do you think the range is on that L-band, wing-mounted AESA radar? Any guesses?
Seeing that the Irbis-E is a hybrid PESA/AESA radar with a purportedly 400km range, and taking the information in your post into account, they both need to work together in order to optimize capacity. That being said, the pilots wouldn't shut down one or the other and just use one to lessen radar exposure?
My original thinking was that it would've been great if say enemy was within 100km, then the pilot could shut down the IRBIS-E and operate only with the wing L-band AESA, being that AESA radars are much more difficult to jam, despite the hybrid status of the IRBIS-E. But maybe not since you're saying they need all radars and associated avionics to function together in order to maximize detail and accuracy?
I think that would be a great option to have and once distance is reduced to 80km or within whatever the range is for the IRST, shut down the AESA and strictly use the IRST to nail the enemy. Unless tracking and locking on to several targets using any of the other two radars -- or combination of -- is better to bring down more that your option with the IRST alone?
ahmedfire wrote:
We don't know exactly the performance characteristics or the cardinal design parameters so no one can exactly say the correct range .
Kopp has a good technical background
Interesting. Thank you ya basha for posting that. I'm curious what are those measurement units for the antennas? Are they meters/centimetres or something else? I'm trying to figure out what the 2 x 12 or 2 x 16 units are? Any idea?
Can't wait to see these in EAF colors! Ya halawa!
They're also touting the 'plasma ignition' feature on the engines which is supposed to be part of the technology in the eventual engine for the Su-57 from what I gather which is excellent, only if I understood WTH that means LOL!
ahmedfire likes this post
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1410
Points : 1486
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
Gomig-21 wrote:
Interesting. Thank you ya basha for posting that. I'm curious what are those measurement units for the antennas? Are they meters/centimetres or something else? I'm trying to figure out what the 2 x 12 or 2 x 16 units are? Any idea?
Can't wait to see these in EAF colors! Ya halawa!
For linear array. The antenna length is simply distance between element multiplied by the number of the antenna elements.
So assuming 1250 MHz frequency or 24 cm (0.24 m) wavelength, the AESA element spacing would be about half wavelength so 12 cm (0.12 m). Thus for 12 elements array it would be 12 * 0.12 = 1.44 m antenna length. The 16 elements unit would therefore be 1.92 m in length.
ahmedfire and Gomig-21 like this post
ahmedfire- Posts : 2134
Points : 2314
Join date : 2010-11-11
Location : The Land Of Pharaohs
Interesting. Thank you ya basha for posting that. I'm curious what are those measurement units for the antennas? Are they meters/centimetres or something else? I'm trying to figure out what the 2 x 12 or 2 x 16 units are? Any idea?
Hi ya kbeer
@Stealthflanker explained it well .
Also the uprated TR modules assume 500 W peak rated transistors at like duty cycle.The baseline are the baseline parameters for Pulse doppler like Straddling Loss,scan loss ,integration loss ,fluctuation Loss ,noise temperature ..etc .
They're also touting the 'plasma ignition' feature on the engines which is supposed to be part of the technology in the eventual engine for the Su-57 from what I gather which is excellent, only if I understood WTH that means LOL! cheers
AFAIK the thermal recoil of the engine increases the high radar visibility of the fighter .
The upgraded nozzles will provide ignition of the plasma arc simultaneously with the supply of kerosene. This will help to avoid the flare - the ejection of a column of fire from the nozzle due to excess fuel in the combustion chamber. Thus, the visibility of the fighter in the infrared and radio waves will decrease .
Can't wait to see these in EAF colors! Ya halawa! Very Happy
It will be like that over the mediterranean
Gomig-21 likes this post
ultimatewarrior- Posts : 798
Points : 796
Join date : 2016-09-19
Location : Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Gomig-21 wrote:GarryB wrote:
The Russians stopped using things on their own decades ago... they combine MMW radar and CM wave radar and EO systems and L band radar and VHS radar and all sort of other assets in their detection capabilities... but they don't just use them separately... a thermal image of a target is nice because a human stands out because of their body warmth, but even the best quality thermal imager doesn't have great resolution so combining a thermal image with a digital video image makes humans stand out but gives a high quality image of a human that would allow positive ID.
NEBO combines different radars operating at different frequencies to create a data fusion of information more useful than each of the three different types could supply on their own.
This is a rendering of a battery ..the VHF-band component is to the right of the image, the S/C-band component is on the left of the image, the L-band component in the foreground, information from all three vehicles is combined in a data fusion system that would not be nearly as effective if any of those components were missing...
That was a heck of a post, Gary! Thanks for all that information.
So what do you think the range is on that L-band, wing-mounted AESA radar? Any guesses?
Seeing that the Irbis-E is a hybrid PESA/AESA radar with a purportedly 400km range, and taking the information in your post into account, they both need to work together in order to optimize capacity. That being said, the pilots wouldn't shut down one or the other and just use one to lessen radar exposure?
My original thinking was that it would've been great if say enemy was within 100km, then the pilot could shut down the IRBIS-E and operate only with the wing L-band AESA, being that AESA radars are much more difficult to jam, despite the hybrid status of the IRBIS-E. But maybe not since you're saying they need all radars and associated avionics to function together in order to maximize detail and accuracy?
I think that would be a great option to have and once distance is reduced to 80km or within whatever the range is for the IRST, shut down the AESA and strictly use the IRST to nail the enemy. Unless tracking and locking on to several targets using any of the other two radars -- or combination of -- is better to bring down more that your option with the IRST alone?ahmedfire wrote:
We don't know exactly the performance characteristics or the cardinal design parameters so no one can exactly say the correct range .
Kopp has a good technical background
Interesting. Thank you ya basha for posting that. I'm curious what are those measurement units for the antennas? Are they meters/centimetres or something else? I'm trying to figure out what the 2 x 12 or 2 x 16 units are? Any idea?
Can't wait to see these in EAF colors! Ya halawa!
They're also touting the 'plasma ignition' feature on the engines which is supposed to be part of the technology in the eventual engine for the Su-57 from what I gather which is excellent, only if I understood WTH that means LOL!
It does not seem Egypt will order Su-35 due to US threat of sanction called CAATSA. Only super powers like China can handle US sanction. Only China bought Su-35 in defiance of CAATSA.
GarryB- Posts : 39068
Points : 39564
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Kopp has a good technical background
I have a lot more respect for Kopp than I do for a lot of media reporters, because he knows his stuff.
Like a lot of intel guys however he often makes assumptions and just treats them as likely to be true...
For a while he also said the L band AESAs were actually EW devices to detect and jam datalinks, and not used to scan like a radar for stealthy targets to detect their presence.
I have no idea of the effective range of the systems, and over time I would expect their performance will improve.
The fact that they are expanding the capacity of Growlers to jam in those frequencies suggests the stealthiness of the F-35 an F-22 and B-2 is not good enough... what a shock for the fan boys... and of course a Growler blazing away with jammers would never be targeted by Russian long range AAMs... it is interesting that the R-37M is designed to engage targets pulling up to 8gs, and the Growler, being based on a naval Hornet model with folding wings that is g limited to 8gs is probably a coincidence...
ahmedfire likes this post
LMFS- Posts : 5102
Points : 5098
Join date : 2018-03-03
GarryB wrote:Kopp has a good technical background
I have a lot more respect for Kopp than I do for a lot of media reporters, because he knows his stuff.
He is a technical guy who knows orders of magnitude more than the mob that smears him on the web, hands down.
For a while he also said the L band AESAs were actually EW devices to detect and jam datalinks, and not used to scan like a radar for stealthy targets to detect their presence.
His assessment speaks clearly about the possibility of the system to act as a radar at credible tactical distances. I haven't read anyone else doing such a in-depth analysis of the system, be it correct or not.
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
I have no idea of the effective range of the systems, and over time I would expect their performance will improve.
The piece of information we are missing is the L-band RCS of those targets as F-35 and F-22. If it were in the region of 1 m2, then the detection range should be already close to 100 km and therefore any attempt of those planes to use stealth to gain advantages over the Su-35 or 57 would be hopeless. And there is indeed reason to think the LO shaping, specially of the F-35, is problematic already at those frequencies, we only don't know how much.
Another important target whose detection would specially benefit from longer wavelengths would be missiles, be it incoming AAMs or stealthy cruise missiles that need to be intercepted. With the dimensions of those missiles, any shaping effort would be directly defeated by the use of L band and lower frequency radars.
The fact that they are expanding the capacity of Growlers to jam in those frequencies suggests the stealthiness of the F-35 an F-22 and B-2 is not good enough... what a shock for the fan boys...
I guess their concern is mainly VHF, because they know at those frequencies their planes glow in the radar screens practically as any other design, but you are right that current reality sends their narrative of "VLO designs" and planes that can perform their missions unsupported directly to the trash bin. But fanboys' religious faith is stronger than facts
In any case, with the new network of radars against aerodynamic targets being set up all around Russia (Konteiner-3M), any hopes about stealth planes taking out unaware VKS fighters and interceptors while they try to shoot down AWACS/ISR, jammers and other supporting assets is just daydreaming.
and of course a Growler blazing away with jammers would never be targeted by Russian long range AAMs... it is interesting that the R-37M is designed to engage targets pulling up to 8gs, and the Growler, being based on a naval Hornet model with folding wings that is g limited to 8gs is probably a coincidence...
Good observation. The huge pods certainly wont help it turning any better...
Gomig-21 likes this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 663
Points : 665
Join date : 2016-07-17
Stealthflanker wrote:
For linear array. The antenna length is simply distance between element multiplied by the number of the antenna elements.
So assuming 1250 MHz frequency or 24 cm (0.24 m) wavelength, the AESA element spacing would be about half wavelength so 12 cm (0.12 m). Thus for 12 elements array it would be 12 * 0.12 = 1.44 m antenna length. The 16 elements unit would therefore be 1.92 m in length.
Excellent. Makes perfect sense. Thanks.
ultimatewarrior wrote:It does not seem Egypt will order Su-35 due to US threat of sanction called CAATSA. Only super powers like China can handle US sanction. Only China bought Su-35 in defiance of CAATSA.
Contract was signed in 2018 and they're actually being built as we speak. As a matter of fact, there was a sat pic taken of 4 of the them already painted and parked probably during testing trials like they did with the MiG-35s.
Plus the US offered the F-15 and a newer version of the F-16 so the EAF would drop the Su-35 and it declined, sighting the Su-35 was a much better fighter jet! I don't think the US will sanction Egypt. They might toot their horn and bitch a little, but that's about it.
JohninMK- Posts : 14743
Points : 14880
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
ultimatewarrior wrote:
It does not seem Egypt will order Su-35 due to US threat of sanction called CAATSA.
Source?
Isos- Posts : 11307
Points : 11277
Join date : 2015-11-06
JohninMK wrote:ultimatewarrior wrote:
It does not seem Egypt will order Su-35 due to US threat of sanction called CAATSA.
Source?
His ass
.
George1- Posts : 18327
Points : 18824
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Four more Su-35S fighters were manufactured for the Russian Knights group
As reported on July 8, PJSC United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yu.A. Gagarina - a branch of Sukhoi Company PJSC (part of the UAC PJSC of Rostec State Corporation) manufactured four more Su-35S aircraft for the Russian Knights aerobatic team. The first four aircraft were handed over last fall.
New fighters were factory tested at KnAAZ them. Yu.A. Gagarin. Aircraft painted in the colors of the Russian flag are standard equipment. They are the most modern modification of the 4 ++ Su-35S generation fighter to date.
On the bmpd side, we indicate that in this way the Russian Vityaz aeronautical aerobatics group of the Russian Aerospace Forces will receive the first four Su-35S fighters built by KnAAZ named after Yu.A. Gagarin on the state defense order of 2020. They were built by KnAAZ within the framework of the five-year contract for the supply of 50 Su-35S fighters signed by the Russian Ministry of Defense with JSC Sukhoi Company in December 2015. KnAAZ was built on ten Su-35S aircraft under this contract annually from 2016 to 2019, and now in 2020 it is planned to hand over the final ten units.
On November 12, 2019, the Russian Knights Aviation Group received the first four Su-35S fighters of the new construction of KnAAZ according to the state defense order of 2019, painted in the group's corporate colors and having blue tail numbers from 50 to 53. Now she will receive four more Su-35Ss built under the state defense order of 2020.
Previously, the Russian Vityazi group air fleet, which is part of the Center for the Display of Aviation Engineering of the 4th Order of Lenin of the Red Banner Center for Military Testing and Training of VKS Chkalov VKS personnel, consisted of eight two-seat Su-30SM fighters, delivered to the group by new ones October-November 2016 (blue tail numbers from "30" to "37"). Su-30SM fighters were replaced in the group by Su-27 fighters, on which the Russian Knights have been flying since they were formed in April 1991.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4081251.html
GarryB- Posts : 39068
Points : 39564
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The piece of information we are missing is the L-band RCS of those targets as F-35 and F-22. If it were in the region of 1 m2, then the detection range should be already close to 100 km and therefore any attempt of those planes to use stealth to gain advantages over the Su-35 or 57 would be hopeless. And there is indeed reason to think the LO shaping, specially of the F-35, is problematic already at those frequencies, we only don't know how much.
Well I don't think they would bother actually fitting it to aircraft if it was not better than IRSTs, and I would expect with experience they will make it better and find other things it could be used for too.
A good example AESA radar which has been found to be useful for EW uses simply though experience of use with it.
Wing leading edge mountings for AESA arrays is also rather interesting in itself and will be useful especially later on with surface mounted photonic radar becomes deployable...
LMFS- Posts : 5102
Points : 5098
Join date : 2018-03-03
[quote="GarryB"]
I don't think it needs necessarily to be better than the IRST, then they would no bother with the later. Their approach is multispectral for their sensors and multifunctional for their radioelectric suites, so they can act both as communication, jamming or detection tools. In regards of their radars, ground based ones are already multiband, while new A-100 will have two bands too. It just allows better and more reliable detection of stealthy targets.
Well I don't think they would bother actually fitting it to aircraft if it was not better than IRSTs, and I would expect with experience they will make it better and find other things it could be used for too.
A good example AESA radar which has been found to be useful for EW uses simply though experience of use with it.
Wing leading edge mountings for AESA arrays is also rather interesting in itself and will be useful especially later on with surface mounted photonic radar becomes deployable...
I don't think it needs necessarily to be better than the IRST, then they would no bother with the later. Their approach is multispectral for their sensors and multifunctional for their radioelectric suites, so they can act both as communication, jamming or detection tools. In regards of their radars, ground based ones are already multiband, while new A-100 will have two bands too. It just allows better and more reliable detection of stealthy targets.
Gomig-21 likes this post
Gomig-21- Posts : 663
Points : 665
Join date : 2016-07-17
LMFS wrote:I don't think it needs necessarily to be better than the IRST, then they would no bother with the later. Their approach is multispectral for their sensors and multifunctional for their radioelectric suites, so they can act both as communication, jamming or detection tools. In regards of their radars, ground based ones are already multiband, while new A-100 will have two bands too. It just allows better and more reliable detection of stealthy targets.
There's also the detection factor. If the enemy aircraft ends up in that range that is just between what that wing AESA likes to be at without being completely detected and at the merge where now, you're only and best solution is using HOBS or the gun, the IRST becomes the most desirable form of detecting the enemy's IR signature and firing a missile using it.
So the IRST might actually be the best form of taking down an enemy aircraft if the altercation ends up within that particular distance.
LMFS wrote:
I guess their concern is mainly VHF, because they know at those frequencies their planes glow in the radar screens practically as any other design, but you are right that current reality sends their narrative of "VLO designs" and planes that can perform their missions unsupported directly to the trash bin. But fanboys' religious faith is stronger than facts
In any case, with the new network of radars against aerodynamic targets being set up all around Russia (Konteiner-3M), any hopes about stealth planes taking out unaware VKS fighters and interceptors while they try to shoot down AWACS/ISR, jammers and other supporting assets is just daydreaming.
I know this is not the thread to discuss this and it would be off-topic, but could you expound on that first paragraph about the VHF aspect supposedly being able to detect VLO AC just briefly, or maybe point me to another thread that discusses that concept in detail or even a link you learned that from? That would be great and much appreciated.
|
|
|