Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

medo wrote:Su-34 PESA radar V004 have 15kW peak power and range of 370 km. I know, you use capabilities of this radar from prototype in nineties and even that radar was comparable with zaslon in MiG-31. Serial Su-34 have well upgraded radar with increased range to 370 km comparing to 200 -250 km range of prototype from nineties.

The V004 certainly doesn't have those capabilities. It is about as cheap of a multi-function radar as one can produce.

https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/254/

This is the info about the radar for Su-32 (not local 34). So there is no doubt that V004 is far more advanced now

miketheterrible wrote:https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/254/

This is the info about the radar for Su-32 (not local 34). So there is no doubt that V004 is far more advanced now

Those are the same specs listed for the reveal at MAKS 2005, nothing about the capabilities of V004 has changed.

Vladimir79 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/254/

This is the info about the radar for Su-32 (not local 34). So there is no doubt that V004 is far more advanced now

Those are the same specs listed for the reveal at MAKS 2005, nothing about the capabilities of V004 has changed.

Yes they have like everything else.

Bars was 140km at first.  Now over 300km for adjustments.  This is actually documented.

Things don't sit idle.  ZaslonM/AM is not same as Zaslon.

miketheterrible wrote:

Yes they have like everything else.

Bars was 140km at first.  Now over 300km for adjustments.  This is actually documented.

Things don't sit idle.  ZaslonM/AM is not same as Zaslon.

Then post some new specs because detecting a railway bridge at 100km isn't new. It is still only detecting a vehicle at 30km.

I think more details will emerge when Su-34M debuts

Vladimir79 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/254/

This is the info about the radar for Su-32 (not local 34). So there is no doubt that V004 is far more advanced now

Those are the same specs listed for the reveal at MAKS 2005, nothing about the capabilities of V004 has changed.

Those specs are from early prototype from nineties. That radar is not in Su-34, because RuAF didn't accept it and was than upgraded. RuAF Su-34 have upgraded radar according to RuAF needs. Su-34 is very important fighter-bomber in RuAF and we could well see its value in Syria. There is a good reason, why Russia didn't bring much info for that upgraded radar.

Information about export models is generally easy to get, but in service equipment is secret and they have no real reason to give that sort of information to anyone.

Специалист утверждает, что в отчетах, учитывающих эффективную площадь рассеяния (ЭПР), «не всегда указывается дальность обнаружения, на которой проводилось измерение», в результате чего приводимые там данные «не совсем объективны». wrote:

Indeed the range at which the radar cross section was determined is critical. All those BS numbers such as 0.001 cm^2 or whatever
are utterly worthless without the range from source to detector.

Эксперт назвал дальности, на которых российский истребитель поколения 4++ Су-35, оснащенный радиолокационной станцией (РЛС) «Ирбис», может обнаружить американский истребитель 5-го поколения F-22 Raptor. По словам Леонкова, последний будет виден на расстоянии 266 километров, вследствие чего «не сможет незаметно осуществить пуск своих ракет AIM-120D на дальность, составляющую 180 километров». wrote:

So the Su-35 with its Irbis detector can clearly see the F-22 at 266 km. This is greater than the range of the AIM-120D missiles used by
the Raptor.

So the Su-35 with its Irbis detector can clearly see the F-22 at 266 km. This is greater than the range of the AIM-120D missiles used by
the Raptor.

266 km based on the L band radar ?

No, Irbis is the radar in the nose of the Su-35... though it might use the wing mounted L band AESA to augment its ability to detect targets too... Like the ground based NEBO uses three different radars operating in three different frequencies to detect and track difficult targets.

Isos wrote:Maybe they need to stop the production of su-34 and shift to su-64, twin seat bomber of su-57, once su-57 start production.

Family of planes like the armata family. It will reduce the price per fighters as more will be build.

I know you are half joking here. But since the su 57 is an evolutionary design based on the T-50, this could probably be done in the future. Imagine an su 57 based Hell Duck.

Basically any variant of the su 27 could be 57'ized.

They have the Okhotnik, I am not sure a strike version of the Su-57 is really needed...

LMFS wrote:They have the Okhotnik, I am not sure a strike version of the Su-57 is really needed...

S-70 is not a replacement for anything, just a complimentary piece. That's how Uncle Sham thinks. It's kind of like how the Russian's planned on flying Su-35's with their Su-57's, when the Americans said F-35's would replace NATO fighters.     It won't replace manned stealth fighters, manned CAS, manned strike fighters. If a Su-57 offshoot designed in the same degree as a replacement for the Su-32/34 than Okhotnik couldn't dream of being a proper substitute. One of a few things a Su-62/64 could in all likelihood do better than a S-70 (or even the Su-57) is being a flying command post, being a major part of weaving sensors and anti-air and ground attack munitions, UAV's/UCAV's/UGV's in hybrid missions against peer/near-pear OPFOR.

GarryB wrote:No, Irbis is the radar in the nose of the Su-35... though it might use the wing mounted L band AESA to augment its ability to detect targets too... Like the ground based NEBO uses three different radars operating in three different frequencies to detect and track difficult targets.

The ground based radars are big enough to transmit huge power to detect targets at long distances .

but the air based has no such capability and of course the wing based L-band (twelve elements per array) has more less capability than the nose based one ( which is x-band on Irbis-E ).

The detection range could be increased by increasing the elements that will improve the power aperture but there is a limit because of the liquid cooling capacity and the available leading edge flap volume.

And the fact the limitation of the energy supplied by the engines themselves. Can't create power out of thin air.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
S-70 is not a replacement for anything, just a complimentary piece. That's how Uncle Sham thinks. It's kind of like how the Russian's planned on flying Su-35's with their Su-57's, when the Americans said F-35's would replace NATO fighters.     It won't replace manned stealth fighters, manned CAS, manned strike fighters. If a Su-57 offshoot designed in the same degree as a replacement for the Su-32/34 than Okhotnik couldn't dream of being a proper substitute. One of a few things a Su-62/64 could in all likelihood do better than a S-70 (or even the Su-57) is being a flying command post, being a major part of weaving sensors and anti-air and ground attack munitions, UAV's/UCAV's/UGV's in hybrid missions against peer/near-pear OPFOR.

What you refer is the typical Russian way of transitioning from one platform to the next. They coexist, because that makes much more sense from an economic and industrial base point of view, but that does not mean that platforms are not substituted by newer ones. Flanker will coexist with Su-57 but will they be bought say post 2030? At a certain point of time they will not be bought anymore and PAK-FA will constitute de bulk of the VKS fighters.

Regarding manned vs. unmanned strike platforms, I think it is clear that the attrition levels they have to sustain provide a very clear incentive to air forces to use preferentially the first ones and spare not just manned platforms but irreplaceable pilots. The concept of having manned platforms coordinating and supporting unmanned ones from behind is very solid and will allow to transition from the current paradigm to fully autonomous machines at some point in the next decade.

The ground based radars are big enough to transmit huge power to detect targets at long distances .

but the air based has no such capability and of course the wing based L-band (twelve elements per array) has more less capability than the nose based one ( which is x-band on Irbis-E ).

The detection range could be increased by increasing the elements that will improve the power aperture but there is a limit because of the liquid cooling capacity and the available leading edge flap volume.

It is not about the power, it is about the aspects of the different frequencies being used... a lot of higher frequencies are effected by moisture in the air... that is why they are used as weather radars... the lower frequency radars are not effected by moisture and are not effected by aircraft shape or coatings a few mms thick...

If the L band wing mounted radar lack power to detect stealth aircraft... then why are they there?

When the enemy builds ABM defences do you develop hypersonic ballistic weapons to defeat it with numbers, or develop hypersonic manouvering targets the defences can't deal with to defeat it?

F-35 and F-22 have stealth features against the radars generally used in modern fighter and anti aircraft missiles... wider frequency ranges need to be used to overcome such protection.

One of a few things a Su-62/64 could in all likelihood do better than a S-70 (or even the Su-57) is being a flying command post, being a major part of weaving sensors and anti-air and ground attack munitions, UAV's/UCAV's/UGV's in hybrid missions against peer/near-pear OPFOR.

A strike version of the Su-57 would be interesting... if you drop the requirements for high speed and high manouver and massively increased the body volume for extra fuel and internal weapons the results could be rather interesting... but off topic for this thread.

It is not about the power, it is about the aspects of the different frequencies being used... a lot of higher frequencies are effected by moisture in the air... that is why they are used as weather radars... the lower frequency radars are not effected by moisture and are not effected by aircraft shape or coatings a few mms thick...

If the L band wing mounted radar lack power to detect stealth aircraft... then why are they there?

I didn't say it will not detect it ,the L-band will detect the stealth ,it's physics coz that band produces wavelengths with comparable size to the aircraft itself.

I meant the range of that detection .Power matters ,it's a main parameter on the radar detection range equation ,doubling it could increase the detection range by 25% .

The mentioned 266 km is more than the capability of the small wing-mounted L-band radar in it's active mode .

The L-band could be used not only against stealth technology but for several tasks like the passive tracking of Link-16 transmitters and detection of surface/land based radars .

It's detection active mode range could be increased by 80% in the case of increasing the number of elements from 12 to 16.

capability of the small wing-mounted L-band radar in it's active mode .

Small?

Have you seen it?

The elements of an L band radar are rather big and the L band array is wider than the nose array on the Su-35... why are you calling it small?

It's detection active mode range could be increased by 80% in the case of increasing the number of elements from 12 to 16.

It could also be increased by having two of them spaced a distance apart in the wing roots of a fighter plane, and when connected to a computer that is also processing data from a nose mounted radar operating in a totally different frequency range then the results can be processed and information extracted that could not be extracted from any single nose mounted radar alone.

Which was the point I was trying to make.

The fact that that chart is in nautical miles suggests to me that it is a western developed chart, which is interesting because before the Soviets revealed they had rocket powered torpedoes a western chart showing torpedo running speeds would top out at about 70 knots and anything faster than that would be not included in that chart... western charts and western experts are like that...

The west has known about Calibre and Club land attack missiles in Russian service but never really acknowledged their existence till they were used against terrorists in Syria...


Russia tracking F-35s on the border between Iran and Iraq suggests they know what they are doing against stealth as well... but lets wait to it is used officially before we actually panic.

The elements of an L band radar are rather big and the L band array is wider than the nose array on the Su-35... why are you calling it small?

The nose mounted radar has a circular shape which in overall give more space to use more TR modules , also give better antenna directivity .

The horizontal design of the wing mounted radar will reduce the antenna directivity area ,limitation of the cooling system size and the total number of modules ,hence the total transmitted peak power would be away less than any mounted nose radar .

By the way the imagery from MAKS-2009 showing each array employs twelve antenna elements in three quad TR modules .

It could also be increased by having two of them spaced a distance apart in the wing roots of a fighter plane, and when connected to a computer that is also processing data from a nose mounted radar operating in a totally different frequency range then the results can be processed and information extracted that could not be extracted from any single nose mounted radar alone.

The computer will process all the data from active/passive systems like the radars ,OLS or RWR .That's fine but each system has it's own capability and detection range . The L-band is just give a capability  which cannot be given easily in the X/Ku-bands .They can also embed the IFF there .

Russia tracking F-35s on the border between Iran and Iraq suggests they know what they are doing against stealth as well.

Yes and they can track it also 60 years ago using their VHF radars but being a land based radar would give more flexibilty to increase the antenna size and provide enough power for it and using multible antennas with different wavelengths like the NEBO system .

but lets wait to it is used officially before we actually panic.

I guess the same , from 2009 to now it should be fully tested and matured .

The nose mounted radar has a circular shape which in overall give more space to use more TR modules , also give better antenna directivity .

The two dimensional array of a nose mounted radar gives more information than a single linear array of sensors... but the individual sensors themselves are just the same... though operating in different frequency ranges.

The horizontal design of the wing mounted radar will reduce the antenna directivity area ,limitation of the cooling system size and the total number of modules ,hence the total transmitted peak power would be away less than any mounted nose radar .

It is not about peak power... American stealth aircraft are stealthy in a narrow frequency range only...

Think of it in terms of infra red and visible light... the F-35 and F-22 have colour camouflage that makes them very very hard to see with a normal digital camera.

The Su-57 has a powerful digital camera that can see fine details and when zoomed in could detect the presence of either aircraft once it knows where to look.

The L band wing mounted array is a thermal imager in this example... the paint they used to camouflage the US aircraft does not work in IR, so both aircraft glow with their heat... just like any other aircraft whether it is stealthy or not.

The L band radar is used for detection and general location and then the nose mounted radar is used to identify and track the stealthy target it might have had trouble finding if it didn't know where to look to start with.

By the way the imagery from MAKS-2009 showing each array employs twelve antenna elements in three quad TR modules .

That would be the export version I would think. I would also think the domestic version will be secret.

The computer will process all the data from active/passive systems like the radars ,OLS or RWR .That's fine but each system has it's own capability and detection range . The L-band is just give a capability which cannot be given easily in the X/Ku-bands .They can also embed the IFF there .

L band radars are not magic and have a few issues, but against stealth aircraft they also have a few advantages. Mixing the results from the nose mounted Ku and Ka band radar, as well as information from the IRST and thermal camera (likely long, medium and short wave IR are used) and you get a system that is harder to fool and produces much better information than any of the sensors could manage on their own.

Yes and they can track it also 60 years ago using their VHF radars but being a land based radar would give more flexibilty to increase the antenna size and provide enough power for it and using multible antennas with different wavelengths like the NEBO system .

Not even close. 60 years ago they had nothing like Container that can detect and track low flying low RCS targets thousands of kms away... NEBO is something different... it supports large SAMs and does not have a dead zone of 900km in front of it where it can't detect anything... NEBO has to detect targets in close and out to decent ranges to do its job...

I guess the same , from 2009 to now it should be fully tested and matured .

The wing mounted systems in the Su-35 are designed for detecting stealthy aircraft and were part of the system designed for Su-57 because that is what it does.... hunts F-22s and F-35s and B-2s.

Putting radar antenna in the wingroot of a fighter plane complicates the design and costs money... I don't think they would bother if it didn't work or show promise to eventually become effective.