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the internet experts in f16.net you can see all shapes and colors of insults towards the su35s , they say its radar is outdated its systems are 20 years behind etc etc , there are many people like this notably a guy called hornetfinn .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...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
, 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 .
, and does that mean a DRFM jammer is useless vs a LPI radar?
