Sukhoi PAK FA

[p2prada]

True in every word.
However, we are speaking about detection of 1 sq m target (with a standard 75% probability), not about tracking, which is possible on the less ranges.

My bad. I was talking about detection ranges, not tracking ranges, Mig-35.

1 - N036 is already a 360 deg radar thanks to its scanning angles

No, it is not. If we assume the design is like Irbis-E, then the main array will be restricted to 240 degrees. The side arrays are too small to become an equivalent. Only ~400 modules and Kopyo size array. Hexagon shape means it is better utilized for ground mapping and ground attack apart from close range tracking of aircraft during WVR combat, or even slightly more than WVR ranges.

To watch the back, you will need an array equivalent to the main one. Even a 650-750mm array with 1000-1200 modules is a huge benefit and may give the remaining 120 degree capability as a fixed array. Now, this is what IAF wants, while VVS is not interested.

This will give true 360 degree capability.

2 - Where do you suppose to place all the rear antenna support hardware?

Of course, I don't know. I don't know the volume of space available in the tail or whether the design of the tail will remain the same on FGFA as it is on PAKFA. However you cannot deny that the size of the array does matter as I mentioned above for a proper 360 degree capability.

 

[Defcon 1]

The Missile will lock what it sees first and that could be your wingman too , as its LOAL

That I understood, but what has it got to do with the aircraft's rear radar? I mean why the presence of rear mounted radar would result in locking in your wingman since IR guidance does not depend on radar?

 

[gadeshi]

Your figures are wrong for 1m2 target. Only F-22 figures are right.



Of course. We need to wait until the contract is signed. Whether IAF can afford or not we will know soon, hopefully.



The claim is not twice. It is 50%.

Rafale News: Thales delivers First AESA radar for the Rafale F3


That's why I said RBE-2AA is not entirely a match for Bars Phase 1 radar (7KW TWT) when it comes to range performance and maybe even resolution. Irbis-E, APG-77, N036 will far outstrip Bars Phase 1 in many ways.

Anyway, official data for RBE-2 PESA is for 3m2 target, not 1m2 target.
Avionics Magazine :: Serious Squall


That's tracking range of 108Km and detection range of 140Km for a 3m2 target. That's why I gave comparative figures of Irbis-E for 3m2 resolution.

If we go by Thales claim of 140 Km detection range being improved by 50%, then that's 200 Km detection range for RBE-2AA for a 3m2 target. This surpasses Bars-1 but is lesser than Bars-2. Yup, this matches Phazatron's claim for Zhuk-AE too, with a similar level of capability as RBE-2AA.

There is supposed to be an estimated 400% improvement in capability between Bars-1 and Irbis-E in just range performance. N036 is naturally a much higher improvement over Irbis-E, maybe not so much in range but in every other parameter.

My wrong. The figures I've named are for 3m2 targets of course. I've just misleaded by a Western 1m2 standard target and haven't check the sources again. Shame on me

 

[gadeshi]

No, it is not. If we assume the design is like Irbis-E, then the main array will be restricted to 240 degrees. The side arrays are too small to become an equivalent. Only ~400 modules and Kopyo size array. Hexagon shape means it is better utilized for ground mapping and ground attack apart from close range tracking of aircraft during WVR combat, or even slightly more than WVR ranges.

To watch the back, you will need an array equivalent to the main one. Even a 650-750mm array with 1000-1200 modules is a huge benefit and may give the remaining 120 degree capability as a fixed array. Now, this is what IAF wants, while VVS is not interested.

This will give true 360 degree capability.

Of course, I don't know. I don't know the volume of space available in the tail or whether the design of the tail will remain the same on FGFA as it is on PAKFA. However you cannot deny that the size of the array does matter as I mentioned above for a proper 360 degree capability.

Guys from KnA say that there are AESA jammer units in the taiboom, but no official proof for that we have for now. We don't even know the ECM system codeneme or cypher. However, it is a quite logical, since it is an ideal place for them and they require minimum support hardware.

As for your thouts about IAF requirements... They simply have no sense according to G5 planes purpose and tactics, and of course are impossible due to rear radome size and support hardware housing vollume needed for 1000-1200 TRMs rear antenna.

I need to go to my work soon, so I'll write a post about tactics later, sorry.

 

[gadeshi]

Strangely comparing the 4th protype with 5th protype

2 things again reappear

1st is 101KS-O (defensive countermeasures station against infrared homing missiles)

2nd is 101KS-U all-round awareness system (roughly saying, Russian counterpart of the F-35's Distributed Aperture System (DAS) ). Threat detection, acquisition and targeting.

3rd 101-KS U MAWS On the fuselage sides of the t-50-4, dissappeared again (lol)

here compare those 2 pics again

5TH PROTOTYPE

4TH PROTOYPE

CHEERS

Relax, man, all the proper mountage places and reinforcements are on their respective places, so all the now missing hardware can be mounted anytime it will be needed. Guys from KnA say that every prototype has its own testing purpose and program, so they don't need to cary excessive hardware untill the testset for the particular bird will be finished. MAWS and OEIS units will be mounted when they will be needed for new tests.

 

[Sridhar]

 

[Drsomnath999]

Your figures are wrong for 1m2 target. Only F-22 figures are right.

to be honest , even the F22 figures may also be not correct or legitimate ( better word)
becoz the exact range is undisclosed by the manufacturers only the blogs / forum give an arbitary value .But exact range is always classified

The claim is not twice. It is 50%.


Rafale News: Thales delivers First AESA radar for the Rafale F3

the confusion arising from various source actually

btw here is a link i can show which support my claims

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-much-better-rafale-latina-aero-magazine.html

even some more may be there in my rafale thread but too lazy to dig in

That's why I said RBE-2AA is not entirely a match for Bars Phase 1 radar (7KW TWT) when it comes to range performance and maybe even resolution. Irbis-E, APG-77, N036 will far outstrip Bars Phase 1 in many ways.

& I have never denied that nor even asked about that too

Anyway, official data for RBE-2 PESA is for 3m2 target, not 1m2 target.
Avionics Magazine :: Serious Squall


.

yes thats my mistake i just realised my fault while surfing

solly

There is supposed to be an estimated 400% improvement in capability between Bars-1 and Irbis-E in just range performance. N036 is naturally a much higher improvement over Irbis-E, maybe not so much in range but in every other parameter.

well true about it's detection & that is also obvious ,nobody can deny that

but exact range claim is too premature is to say now & it can be even higher than that what u can even imagine for No36

BTW there is an indian version of radar going on for Indian FFGA NO79 who knows about it 's claim

CHEERS

 

[Drsomnath999]

Relax, man, all the proper mountage places and reinforcements are on their respective places, so all the now missing hardware can be mounted anytime it will be needed. Guys from KnA say that every prototype has its own testing purpose and program, so they don't need to cary excessive hardware untill the testset for the particular bird will be finished. MAWS and OEIS units will be mounted when they will be needed for new tests.

LOLLZ
dude i am not panicking

i know & it was just pointing out those for comparision basis only

CHEERS

 

[p2prada]

Guys from KnA say that there are AESA jammer units in the taiboom, but no official proof for that we have for now. We don't even know the ECM system codeneme or cypher. However, it is a quite logical, since it is an ideal place for them and they require minimum support hardware.

It definitely has a radio emitter, looking at the radiation symbols all over the tail.

Anyway, the ECM suite is called L402 Himalaya.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...oscow-mak-2013-piotr-butowski.html#post796934

One component of the N036 Byelka (squirrel) radar not shown at MAKS 2013 was an element of the Sh121 electronic warfare
suite; the L402 Himalaya ECM (electronic countermeasures)system, made for the PAK FA by the KNIRTI institute. The L402
ECM uses two sets of arrays; its own which are distributed around the aircraft (one is fittedin the sting, a large dorsal pod
located between the engine exhaust nozzles), and those of the N036 radar.

As for your thouts about IAF requirements... They simply have no sense according to G5 planes purpose and tactics, and of course are impossible due to rear radome size and support hardware housing vollume needed for 1000-1200 TRMs rear antenna.

We can't speculate the need for it. IAF merely has mentioned that they have such a requirement, so we will have to stand by it.

 

[p2prada]

the confusion arising from various source actually

btw here is a link i can show which support my claims

This is from the horse's mouth.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thaless-rbe2-aesa-radar-successfully-completes-new-series-tests

range extended by over 50% for future compatibility with new weapon systems like Meteor

Don't believe arbitrary terms like "almost" twice.

1000 modules + 7-10W module won't give anymore. This is a ceiling value too. In real conditions, depending on the condition, it will be even lesser.

BTW there is an indian version of radar going on for Indian FFGA NO79 who knows about it 's claim

That N079 term could very well be hear say. We will need to wait for real announcement. That's because PAKFA's radar was previously called N050. So many people were "sure" that it is N050 and not N036.

 

[Drsomnath999]

This is from the horse's mouth.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thaless-rbe2-aesa-radar-successfully-completes-new-series-tests


Don't believe arbitrary terms like "almost" twice.

i am sorry to say this
u have posted an old article from 2010 onwards that too in Cazaux flight test centre in Southwest France

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/cont...dar-successfully-completes-new-series-tests-0

i am talking about the latest test conducted at Mont-de-Marsan with production radar demonstrated a detection range doubled compared with the PESA
that source is from year 2012 that too from french airforce general himself

'OVER 50 % & ALMOST TWICE"

these are words are deceiving
it can be 70% or 90% whatever but nobody can say the exact range that is damn classified only a french airforce official can say the exact value .They are not Russian who would beat their drums & saying those things that should be classified openly about their exact range of IRBIS -E radar




.

1000 modules + 7-10W module won't give anymore. This is a ceiling value too. In real conditions, depending on the condition, it will be even lesser.

RBE 2 aesa radar due to it's lowest T/R module count among all aesa radar is the lowest detection range among aesa radar right now.
On top of it jamming condition it can be even lesser

At the end of the day it's pak-fa thread not rafale

CHEERS

 

[p2prada]

i am sorry to say this
u have posted an old article from 2010 onwards that too in Cazaux flight test centre in Southwest France

i am talking about the latest test conducted at Mont-de-Marsan with production radar demonstrated a detection range doubled compared with the PESA
that source is from year 2012

That's not how things work. The radar will have to leave earth and work in a totally different environment to show different values. A different city does nothing. Or they will have to completely change the front end to an entirely new technology base, which they did not really have time, since the same radar tested in Cazaux was the same that is operational today.

It didn't say detection range was doubled, it said "almost twice". There's a huge difference. 50% is also almost twice.

Overall, I was only establishing the fact that RBE-2AA will have lesser range than what you claimed in #2981. Gadeshi corrected his statements. So we can leave it at that.

 

[Austin]

That I understood, but what has it got to do with the aircraft's rear radar? I mean why the presence of rear mounted radar would result in locking in your wingman since IR guidance does not depend on radar?

The initial launch parameter will come from the rear radar like general direction of launch , range of target be it IR or ARH , even if the risk of IR seeing the wrong target post 180 * turn/launch exist but you dont just launch a missile without passing some initial guidance parameter which is generally obtained from radar.

Ofcourse you can have a rear radar but then you need to see the trade off and advantage involved in having one looking at aperture size , power , space ,cooling constrains etc.

 

[Defcon 1]

The initial launch parameter will come from the rear radar like general direction of launch , range of target be it IR or ARH , even if the risk of IR seeing the wrong target post 180 * turn/launch exist but you dont just launch a missile without passing some initial guidance parameter which is generally obtained from radar.

Ofcourse you can have a rear radar but then you need to see the trade off and advantage involved in having one looking at aperture size , power , space ,cooling constrains etc.

Ok, you are basically saying that the launch parameters will be passed to the missile automatically from the radar, as opposed to the pilot selecting the target manually, right? Because it is not possible that pilot selects one target and the parameter passed to the missile contain info about another.

Then how does target selection takes place in case there are multiple targets within the radar view?

 

[gadeshi]

The initial launch parameter will come from the rear radar like general direction of launch , range of target be it IR or ARH , even if the risk of IR seeing the wrong target post 180 * turn/launch exist but you dont just launch a missile without passing some initial guidance parameter which is generally obtained from radar.

Ofcourse you can have a rear radar but then you need to see the trade off and advantage involved in having one looking at aperture size , power , space ,cooling constrains etc.

It is rather rare scenario due to missile capabilities. It looses huge amount of energy starting backwards (180 deg turn), which causes range and manouver energy shortage.

 

[p2prada]

Pretty good video.

At 7:00, they say that aircraft of the 4.5th gen show up on radar the size of a football(0.25m) while PAKFA's RCS is that of a tennis ball(0.06m).

In comparison, F-35 is said to be the size of a golf ball while the F-22 is the size of a metal marble.

The diameter of a golf ball (0.04m) is roughly 1/3rd the size of a tennis ball.

Marbles come in various sizes, so it is difficult to pinpoint which marble they were talking about. If we take a metal marble of 0.015m, the smallest marble size.

Metal marble = 0.00018 m2
Golf ball = 0.0015 m2
Tennis ball = ~0.003 m2
football = 0.06 m2 or ~0.1m2 if generalized considering a large object.

At these values, F-22 is ~16 times more stealthy than PAKFA. F-35 is twice as stealthy as PAKFA. PAKFA is over well 30 times more stealthy than clean EF/Rafale/Gripen. This actually matches Sukhoi's claim of PAKFA having 40 times lesser RCS than 4.5th gen birds.

According to the radar equation, to reduce detection distance by half you will need to reduce RCS by 16 times. While the difference between F-35 and PAKFA is negligible in terms of RCS, the F-22 will pick up PAKFA first if they both have the same radar capability. Meaning, PAKFA will pick up the F-22 at twice the distance that the PAKFA was picked up by the F-22 using the same radar. So PAKFA's going to have to use a combination of detection systems to beat the F-22 or try and stay ahead of the F-22 in radar capability.

 

[ersakthivel]

At 7:00, they say that aircraft of the 4.5th gen show up on radar the size of a football(0.25m) while PAKFA's RCS is that of a tennis ball(0.06m).

if this statement is true then PAKFA is not a 5th gen fighter at all,

It has a fourth of 4.5th gen fighter RCS meaning PAKFA will be tracked at half the distance needed to track the 4.5 th gen,

So if an ASEA radar detects 4.5th gen fighter at 120 Kms a PAKFA will be detected at 60 Kms.

And it is no source for combat. Because in merge air combat which does not permit shots at 120 Km range because of no IFF usage and fighters normally fire BVRs at around 60 to 70 Kms range , the stealth edge of PAKFA is almost blunted, if 4.5th gen planes came equipped with external stealth complaint weapon bay in air to air mode,

No wonder IAf is demanding improvements in all spheres (which will be time consuming) and reducing it's orders aka Su-30 MKI way,

So in the same way as RAFALE will end up eating into tejas mk-2 orders with little substantial benefits for the huge cost ,

the FGFA is going to cut into AMCA numbers with no tangible benefits over much better stealth design of AMCA and will only end up in a huge forex outgo black hole over the decades,

And if it ends up with less stealth than the J-20 and j-31 , what is the benefit for IAF?

Why is IAF not raising it's vice on this issue? What was the RCS specified for FGFA by IAF? Did they specify anything or not in the first place?

If tejas mk-3 can be designed with much lower stealth with no major design changes with operational certified two Kaveri k-9 engines like Mirage-4000 by the french it will give a better value for IAf than FGFA in facing much better stealth compliant J-20 and J-31 in home air space,

IAF can limit it's PAKFA buy and RAFALE buy to just 2 squadrons each and better set aside some money for Tejas mk-3 stealth variant and Tejas mk-2 variant,

It will have thrice the number of aircrafts all with same capability if it goes this way.

The absence of serpentine intakes which completely hides the engine blades is a definite problem in PAKFA.

So if PAKFA ends up having less stealth than chinese J-20 and even export version J-31 which is sure going to land up in PAF, what is the point of IAF sinking billions of dollars in it in the name of a fake JV?

Since J-20 and J-31 both of which uses serpentine air intakes and copies of best aspects of F-35 and F-22 in RCS reduction measures , PAKFA will definitely have many times more RCS than both the J-20 and J-31

Since tejas mk-2 is yet to be designed it is possible to reduce it's RCS to around the FGFA level and if stealth complaint external bomb bays are designed from the out set it will be a step above RAFALE and just closer to PAKFA.

The question IAF should ask is not whether PAKFA can out do F-22 in RCS?

It is whether PAKFA can out do at least J-20 and J-31 in RCS?

Seems not, And nobody is going to raise this question, When it comes to foreign fighter buys , IAF displays '"All is quiet on western front " Attitude,

Why?

if it falls below F-22 , J-20 and J-31 in RCS specs then it will be a very dubious buy for IAF, with no strategic value for the tens of billions of forex reserves we are going to funnel into this black hole called FGFA over decades in high priced spares and huge upgrade costs and high operating cost

 

[Sridhar]

So PAKFA's going to have to use a combination of detection systems to beat the F-22 or try and stay ahead of the F-22 in radar capability.

PAKFA radar's detection range is 250 miles whereas F22 is at 185 miles ...

 

[asianobserve]

Pretty good video.

At 7:00, they say that aircraft of the 4.5th gen show up on radar the size of a football(0.25m) while PAKFA's RCS is that of a tennis ball(0.06m).

In comparison, F-35 is said to be the size of a golf ball while the F-22 is the size of a metal marble.

The diameter of a golf ball (0.04m) is roughly 1/3rd the size of a tennis ball.

Marbles come in various sizes, so it is difficult to pinpoint which marble they were talking about. If we take a metal marble of 0.015m, the smallest marble size.

Metal marble = 0.00018 m2
Golf ball = 0.0015 m2
Tennis ball = ~0.003 m2
football = 0.06 m2 or ~0.1m2 if generalized considering a large object.

At these values, F-22 is ~16 times more stealthy than PAKFA. F-35 is twice as stealthy as PAKFA. PAKFA is over well 30 times more stealthy than clean EF/Rafale/Gripen. This actually matches Sukhoi's claim of PAKFA having 40 times lesser RCS than 4.5th gen birds.

According to the radar equation, to reduce detection distance by half you will need to reduce RCS by 16 times. While the difference between F-35 and PAKFA is negligible in terms of RCS, the F-22 will pick up PAKFA first if they both have the same radar capability. Meaning, PAKFA will pick up the F-22 at twice the distance that the PAKFA was picked up by the F-22 using the same radar. So PAKFA's going to have to use a combination of detection systems to beat the F-22 or try and stay ahead of the F-22 in radar capability.

I guess you're wrong about PAKFA having more or less the same RCS than F-22 and superior RCS to F-35.

 

[Drsomnath999]

Interview of Tikhomirov-NIIP Director General Yuri Bely from take off ru March 2013

CHEERS