Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 10 May 2018, 04:01

geforcerfx wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

Your dreaming if you believe India will ever buy the Su-57 from Russia.

Yeah I guess they will just go in with Russia on a massive J-31 buy

Point is India has other options including the F-35. While, Russia can't afford another Stealth Fighter. Nor, does it have the time to develop one. Even if it had the resources to do so. (which it doesn't)

Nonetheless, if you have a viable alternative I am all ears..... :wink:

mk82 · by **mk82** » 10 May 2018, 14:20

spazsinbad wrote:How come India does not know about this Su-57 and why is it not available to them or it was and they said PASS (beaming).
Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose -- and it's a big threat to the US
10 May 2018 Alex Lockie

"" • Russia’s fifth-generation fighter jet that made an appearance at Russia’s Victory Day parade isn’t really a stealth jet.
"" • The side-mounted radars on the Su-57 allow it to excel at a tactic called “beaming” that can trick the radars on US
---- stealth jets.
"" • But it’s unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.

[then follows evidence for lack of stealth in the design]

...the true purpose of Russia’s new fighter – not to evade radar itself, but to kill US stealth jets like the F-35 and F-22.

The Su-57 will feature side mounted radars along its nose, an infrared search-and-track radar up front, and additional radars in front and back, as well as on the wings.

As The Drive’s Tyler Rogoway writes, the side-mounted radars on the Su-57 allow it to excel at a tactic called “beaming” that can trick the radars on US stealth jets. Beaming entails flying perpendicular to a fighter’s radar in a way that makes the fighter dismiss the signature of the jet as a non-target.

Any fighter can “beam” by flying sideways, but the Su-57, with sideways-mounted radars, can actually guide missiles and score kills from that direction. Russia has long taken a different approach to fighter aircraft than the US, but the Su-57 shows that even without the fancy precision-machined stealth of an F-22 [WUT? Sucks to be U], Moscow’s jets can remain dangerous and relevant."

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russ ... -35-2018-5

It’s all well and good that Alex is j*zzing his pants about super deadly Russian beaming maneuvers but how the HELL are you suppose to beam an essentially invisible adversary? Good luck beaming randomly......you may end up eating an air to air missile fired from your 3 or 9 O’clock HEAD ON!

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 10 May 2018, 14:33

mk82 wrote:It’s all well and good that Alex is j*zzing his pants about super deadly Russian beaming maneuvers but how the HELL are you suppose to beam an essentially invisible adversary? Good luck beaming randomly......you may end up eating an air to air missile fired from your 3 or 9 O’clock HEAD ON!

LOL

Of course that you're absolutely right. The Su-57 could even have radars mounted in its a$$ that the end result would be exactly the same!

gta4 · by **gta4** » 10 May 2018, 15:21

“ The side-mounted radars on the Su-57 allow it to excel at a tactic called “beaming” that can trick the radars on US”

Good point. The 360 coverage provided by F-35's DAS can guide missiles to any direction (not only sideways) and will give Su-57 even harder time.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 10 May 2018, 15:31

gta4 wrote:“ The side-mounted radars on the Su-57 allow it to excel at a tactic called “beaming” that can trick the radars on US”

Good point. The 360 coverage provided by F-35's DAS can guide missiles to any direction (not only sideways) and will give Su-57 even harder time.

Exactly! And moreover the side-mounted radars on the Su-57 will also provide the F-35's an "extra and better ability" to launch missiles against the Su-57 this time with the "extra help" from the F-35's own EW suite :wink:

juretrn · by **juretrn** » 10 May 2018, 16:28

So the main radar unit is unable to track stealth fighters at useful ranges, but the side units are?
k

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 10 May 2018, 16:38

No kidding.. 1/3rd the transmit power combined with 1/3rd the dish size (means only 1/3rd of the reflected energy will be received) = 1/9th (likely worse) of the reflected energy of the main dish.

Anyone care to calculate the detection ratio vs the main dish?

icemaverick · by **icemaverick** » 10 May 2018, 22:30

How exactly would flying perpendicular to the radar emissions trick the radar? Wouldn’t the Su-57 have a larger RCS from the side aspect? It seems this would to the exact opposite....it would give the radar a much bigger target.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 10 May 2018, 22:36

icemaverick wrote:Wouldn’t the Su-57 have a larger RCS from the side aspect? It seems this would to the exact opposite....it would give the radar a much bigger target.

That's what happens when "journalists" care more about "clicks" than "facts".

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 10 May 2018, 22:40

icemaverick wrote:How exactly would flying perpendicular to the radar emissions trick the radar? Wouldn’t the Su-57 have a larger RCS from the side aspect? It seems this would to the exact opposite....it would give the radar a much bigger target.

A doppler radar requires a change in velocity relative to the background. This is what allowed "look-down" radars. I wouldn't bet on it being an effective technique against an AESA radar.

hythelday · by **hythelday** » 10 May 2018, 23:01

Seems like Alex Lockie has either been listening to experts from topwar.ru or is actually one of those very people under alias. I've heard about this perpendicular flying before, only then it was called "ortogonal turn" ("ортогональный отворот") and I was assured that due to this cunning technique Flankers would stay hidden from Eagles (active stealth? This is, ugh... reactive stealth!) while guiding R-27s at them using Ibris-E's mechanical deflection ability.

Needles to say I agree with this wholeheartedly! If Russian AF pilots really train to fight this way then maybe we've got one less thing to worry about.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 10 May 2018, 23:25

That technique may have worked against MSA radars in the 1980s, but it's not conducive to longevity against modern systems.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 11 May 2018, 02:21

wrightwing wrote:That technique may have worked against MSA radars in the 1980s, but it's not conducive to longevity against modern systems.

That is a good point. If the AESA can scan with tight enough beam to pick out a flying targets without including any ground cover, flying at right angles isn’t going to accomplish much. Well, unless you are in the ground cover.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 11 May 2018, 02:44

More outdated 1v1 thinking that ignores the reality of a networked battle space.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 11 May 2018, 09:02

SpudmanWP wrote:No kidding.. 1/3rd the transmit power combined with 1/3rd the dish size (means only 1/3rd of the reflected energy will be received) = 1/9th (likely worse) of the reflected energy of the main dish.

Anyone care to calculate the detection ratio vs the main dish?

AFAIK, the side arrays have 358 modules while the main array has 1552 modules. This would mean that the side arrays have 1/3rd the detection range compared to main array. This is because the antenna gain is directly proportional to module count in AESAs and so is power output. Antenna gain is calculated for both transmit and receive antennas and in most cases it means total gain = twice the one way gain. So we know comparative power and comparative antenna gain and everything else is likely pretty equal. Smaller antenna likely has slightly lower efficiency and so the difference might be slightly larger, but not much.

Basically I'd say this radar would be next to useless for aerial combat against VLO targets. I think this is also why they were omitted from F-22. Better option seems to opt for better data links, sensor fusion and co-operative tactics using the main radar and other sensors.