F-22 vs Su-30MKI

Or maybe the J-20's stealth isn't really all that to begin with

)

India's AFNET system can link multiple airborne and ground based systems to their central command structure, I'm not sure if it also allows them to share information with each other (can Su-30s receive targeting information from SPYDER) if they can, then its quite possible that multiple ground and air based AESA systems were used to track the J-20.


Again, despite all this, I am still not 100% convinced

Does their AFNET shares also with the enemy, because I hear the Pakistanis were listening to their fresh communications as India did not have encryption nor jam and evesdropping proof frequency hopping on their radios.

Hence they are scrambling to buy from Israel this type of secure com technology now.

India has some glaring deficiencies in their equipment and it is almost like we let them play obviously at Cope India, or maybe even spied on them. The Pakistanies were ready and whooped their a$%es.

So that story of the J20 teasing them should be taken with a grain of salt, because it is likely the Chinese did that on purpose to gather intel on their own capabilities, playing on their ego.

https://www.weaponews.com/news/65353389 ... ommun.html

Ans this article seem to indicate their data sharing is not secure either...

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/arti ... ets/461569

So the Chinese were probably watching what the Indians were watching with the SU30, ie their own J20...

So the Chinese were probably watching what the Indians were watching with the SU30, ie their own J20...

Well thats a lot of Faith on what the Chinese can do?

At least India buys their tech from Russia, Israel, France and even the US.
China mostly relies on reverse engineered Russian stuff and stolen Israeli/American tech.
China has a little more money but India has more defense cooperation and tech transfer agreements.
Frankly I'd put a slight edge on India's capabilities a bit more.

I'm not saying its impossible, but not even China herself is claiming they have that capability, so there is absolutely no basis for us to speculate that they can.

Specifically, the Su-30mki uses a Russian AESA radar coupled with R-27, R-77 and R-73 missiles. The HUD is Israeli. The RWR is indigeneous. it carries a EL-8222 SPJ which appears to have been proven against F-16 fired AIM-120C-5s during the recent balakot engagement.

The J-20 uses an AESA radar which is Chinese in origin and developed from the original KLJ-7 radar that equipped the J-10. Its easy to over-estimate Chinese capability to "steal" and under-estimate NG's capability to defend its IP but generic design of how AESA radar works is not exactly beyond the capability of most nations to develop. Whether it is the same or even close to the capability of western/Israeli radars is another matter (unlikely). There are some metric the Chinese can match or exceed e.g. power rating but....

...similar to what the Su-30mki had a reported issue with are things like resolution. The Bars radar had difficulty with long range identification (hence its most effective weapon is still the R-73). That is a function of computing power/software which is also a sign of the age in which the radar was built. Even the Russians have upgraded that radar. The Chinese do have a development cycle advantage (i.e. they are coming in later) and computing capabilities beyond what the Russians or Indians can put out. That much is supportable. At the same time, the current J-20 radars are Chinese 2nd generation, that comes after early J-10/J-11 development. There would be improvement.

What the US does not take lightly is the Chinese missile tech which appears more reliable than Russian (i.e. they hit their targets more often than not). That much can be seen in long ranged AAM/ASM tests, regardless of whether these were copied or not. Whether it was a Pakistani JF-17 or F-16 that downed the MIg-21 is something the USAF would have verified very quickly with the Pakistanis. If it truly was a JF-17 (which I suspect it was), clearly the USAF would be doing something about it.

Why it is more likely to be a JF-17 is simply from the fact that the Su-30s were claiming to be able to deflect AIM-120s with their SPJs. That same SPJs also equip the Mig-21 and thus may have more difficulty identifying a Chinese missile. The west has a very strong handle on what Russians can put into the field, the difficulty is getting a reliable estimate of what the Chinese can do (short of a war).

PESA not AESA, no Su-30 variant has an AESA yet.

The BARs is not a complete PESA either. Technically its a hybrid of both AESA and PESA. Having said that, its a moot point if IAF is upgrading its Su-30mki with an AESA radar.

The BARs is not a complete PESA either. Technically its a hybrid of both AESA and PESA.

How do you come to this conclusion? Its a normal PESA Radar.

The west has a very strong handle on what Russians can put into the field

From what the video shows, the IAF seem to have a very strong handle on what the Chinese can put into the field. Thats if you won't dismiss their claims as propaganda.
Personally I think the PLAAF and IAF are very closely matched.

The PLAAF's front line units are composed of a high low mix of J-11s and J-10s, these are supported by export variants of the Su-27 and Su-30. The J-16, J-20 and maybe the Su-35 are their highest tier units which are deployed in very small numbers
J-16 (50+ units)
J-20 (<30 units)
Su-35 (24 ordered, probably just to steal their engine tech)

The IAF on the other hand uses their highest tier unit, the Su-30MKI as the workhorse unit, this will be supported by the Rafale soon. Suposedly there will be around 100+ Rafales, the 36 are just the initial order. There are also Mig-29s and Mirage 2000s used for various strike and support roles.

I consider both the Su-30MKI and Rafale superior to China's J-10 and J-11 combo. If they can get the Rafale in the numbers they need then the IAF's front line fighters will be superior to the PLAAF's. But the small number of Elite Chinese fighters will be a superior to anything the IAF can throw at the moment. But the superiority will not be a whole lot, it will not match the technology gap the F-22 and F-35 brings against 4th gens.

Interesting to note that the USAF philosophy on High low mix seems to be somewhat of a reversed version of the Chinese one. As it stands today the USAF has 186 F-22's supported by around 90 F-15Cs for air superiority.

There will eventually be more than 1000 F-35As being supported by whats left of the F-16C and F-15E fleets for the Fighter/Attack roles.

So the elite top tier units out number the lower tier support units.

The BARs is not a complete PESA either. Technically its a hybrid of both AESA and PESA.

How do you come to this conclusion? Its a normal PESA Radar.

There are a lot of write ups on the net on this. A simple layman's explanation per wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bars_radar

It's worth noting that N011M is not simply a PESA, but instead, it's a transition between PESA and AESA in that it adopts technologies from both: each transceiver on the antenna array of N011M has its own receiver amplifier, which is the same as AESA, and with noise level of 3dB, which is also in the same class of AESA arrays. However, for transmitting, N011M uses PESA technology in that a single Chelnok traveling-wave tube is used for EGSP-6A transmitter. There are three receiving channels for N011M.

Personally I think the PLAAF and IAF are very closely matched.

In terms of numbers, as a simple indicator, PLAAF fields ~80 fighter brigades each individually larger than the 30+ fighter squadrons which the IAF currently fields (simply a function of the 3x defense budget). Deployment wise, IAF of course enjoys local superiority vis what China deploys in Tibet. China does have its focus on their eastern seaboard but IAF also has its hands full tackling the 20 PAF fighter sqns. 2 sqns of Rafales, even if an effective plane, will take time to induct and train (if they don't crash these). The above can be validated via Scramble.nl.

Technologically, Su-30mki compares well to early Chinese Suks (J-11A/Su-27s) but the later Chinese suks have significant advantages. The biggest of these being missiles. Whilst IAF continues to field Russian stock missiles, the Chinese not only fields the same but also their locally-developed missiles which are claimed to be improvements of the Russian missiles. The latest being the PL-21 (that were fielded with J-16s) that "out-sticks" not only the stock missiles but also potentially American ones. PL-15s are already being standard with J-20s. IAF is responding by equipping their Suks with the Derby and their locally developed Astra.

With the Chinese employing Suks, they know generally firsthand what the IAF Su-30mki is capable (or not capable of). The remaining IAF comprises less capable Mig-29s, Jaguars, Mirage 2000s and Mig-21s. On the flip side, PLAAF J-10s, J-20s, JH-7s are an unknown quality even if there are well-educated guesses of their capabilities.

IAF suks and missiles have also been reported to suffer from low MC/serviceability rates arising from spares, tyres etc. Such rates are not reliably reported by the Chinese so difficult to compare.

Most importantly, both sides (Chinese and Indians) are successfully relying diplomacy, trade and economics to steer away from conflict so any comparison is purely academic, even though 1962-era nationalistic jingoism still dominates forum narratives. China is India's number 1 trading partner and plays the role of the bogeyman to justify the military budget (can't justify based on Pakistan).

Personally, I don't see how anyone could consider the IAF a close match for the PLAAF???

Let's look and just "some" of the common facts about the Indian Air Force...


1.) Way under fighter strength. (Requirement 42 Squadron has "30" that have to support two fronts!)

2.) Majority of the fighter fleet is made up from a motley mix of older types. (Jaguars, Mig-21's, Mig-29's, and Mirage 2000's)

3.) Most have rather poor "serviceability". Which, would be near "impossible" to support in any major conflict. Supply Chain alone would be a nightmare......

4.) Only newer and more capable types are the Su-30MKI* and Rafale. The former are fairly capable. Yet, as mentioned above not so good serviceability. While, the Indian Air Force has ordered only "36" Rafale's and taken delivery of none of them. Even when they do not enough for even two full squadrons!

5.) Future looks bleak as the Government seems unwilling to order additional Su-30MKI's and LCA in numbers. While, the MWF (LCA MKII) and AMCA are more fantasy than reality!

6.) India's recent conflict with Pakistan last April was hardly stellar. When it lost two fighters! :?

7.) Buying the S-400 from Russia has pretty much shut the door on the F-35. Which, is nothing short of a "colossal mistake". As the former is the only viable counter to Chinese Stealth Fighters post 2030.



*Note: In any conflict the Su-30MKI and Rafale's would be first on the PLAAF target list. :shock:

Speaking of the Indian Air Force..........

DRDO, French company talks on Kaveri jet engine crash


NEW DELHI: The plan to develop the indigenous Kaveri fighter jet engine as part of the Rafale offsets deal with the help of French technology is believed to have fallen through after the Indian side found the pricing prohibitive........

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... n=ETTWMain


HAL pitches for 4 more squadrons of Su-30MKI

State-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has pitched for an order to manufacture four additional squadrons of the Su-30 MKI jets to quickly meet gaps in fighter squadron strength but the air force seems to be only keen on ordering replacements for aircraft that have been lost in accidents.


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... EN5CCdepNQ

HAL awaits dues and LCA order from IAF

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) is working towards completing by December the first Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) made to the Air Force’s final operational clearance (FOC) configuration, according to R. Madhavan, CMD of HAL.

“Beyond that, we aim to produce one LCA every month,” he said. The FOC for the plane was given in February last. The IAF had bought 20 LCAs in the FOC version, having already received the first lot of 20 in the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) version, he observed on the sidelines of the Air Chief Marshal L.M. Katre memorial lecture here on Sunday.

“We have the capacity to make 16 LCAs a year [at the Bengaluru complex.] We expect that the firm order for the approved 83 planes also comes in,” he said. The order is worth around ₹59,000 crore.

However, after recent price negotiations on this purchase, HAL had not received any order yet. Right now, money was its first concern, Mr. Madhavan said. Fresh orders apart, the defense PSU urgently needs the cumulative arrears of around ₹20,000 crore from the IAF. Last year, HAL had to borrow ₹1,000 crore from banks in an unprecedented act for paying staff salaries and routine expenses.

“Until now we have somehow managed [our finances] with our funds and from bank loans. I hope something will come through soon for us to maintain the level.” Expectation is also on the revised estimates in the defense budget and some money from deliveries to the Army.”

Which was why, he said, even if the order for the 83 LCAs came in, “We can take it up only if it comes in with the money associated with it.” The money was needed for materials, besides design work taken up with development body, the Aeronautical Development Agency.

HAL, he said, was also keen on contesting for Malaysia’s tender for 12 fighter planes in the LCA category.

https://www.shinflawerchannel.com/2019/ ... Mtw0bl209M

The BARs is not a complete PESA either. Technically its a hybrid of both AESA and PESA.

How do you come to this conclusion? Its a normal PESA Radar.

There are a lot of write ups on the net on this. A simple layman's explanation per wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bars_radar

It's worth noting that N011M is not simply a PESA, but instead, it's a transition between PESA and AESA in that it adopts technologies from both: each transceiver on the antenna array of N011M has its own receiver amplifier, which is the same as AESA, and with noise level of 3dB, which is also in the same class of AESA arrays. However, for transmitting, N011M uses PESA technology in that a single Chelnok traveling-wave tube is used for EGSP-6A transmitter. There are three receiving channels for N011M.

That's also totally misleading as every single PESA radar has receiver amplifier (low noise amplifier LNA) in tranceiver (or receiver). It's also impossible to put that LNA to antenna array itself as there the LNA would fry instantly when the radar is transmitting due to enormous power levels involved. In every fighter radar size PESA radar the LNA is outside and well away the antenna array and well isolated with duplexer and limiter switch. Radar receive signal in PESA goes first through phase shifters (there is some loss), then it goes through duplexer (there is loss), then through waveguide (there is some loss), then through receiver protection (some loss there too) and then to Low Noise Amplifier where the signal is amplified for the receiver itself. After that there are no meaningful losses in the system.

In AESA the signal goes to LNA much more directly and there is lot lower losses. First the receive signal goes through duplexer (with some loss) and then through receiver/LNA protection (with some loss). Then it goes directly to LNA where the signal is amplified. After that there are no meaningful losses in the system. Phase shifting is usually done after LNA which means one major loss item is avoided. Also there is LNA in each TRM which means there are 800-2000 LNAs in the system. In PESA there is only one LNA in the receiver (or tranceiver). LNA noise figure may be the same in both AESA and PESA, but in PESA there are more lossy items in the signal path. Modern PESA has about 3 dB higher losses than modern AESA in receive path and pretty much the same in transmit path due to same reasons. So AESA is more sensitive

Basically it's impossible to have hybrid of PESA and AESA. They work in very different ways and combining two different methods of operation is not possible. Only common thing is electronic beam steering and using phase shifting elements. Otherwise PESA is much more like MSA radar than AESA. I think it was Carlo Kopp who brought this idea that Bars and Irbis radars are somehow close to AESA in operation in the receive path with equal noise/loss levels and sidelobe performance. That's not possible at all like explained above. Losses are definitively higher in PESA and sidelobe performance can't be similar as there is only one receiving element vs. 800-2000 receiving elements in AESAs. This way the errors decorrelate in multiple receiving elements and directivity, gain and sidelobe performance are all better.

Thanks for your post Hornetfinn.

You explained far better then i ever could.

Thanks for your post Hornetfinn.

You explained far better then i ever could.

hornetfinn to the rescue!

Let me introduce you to some other gems from the mighty BARS wiki article. For example, russian article says:

В качестве преимуществ данного радиолокатора (в частности, перед РЛС AN/APG-77 для истребителей F-22) отмечаются высокое разрешение и производительность, возможность эффективно работать по наземным и воздушным целям[6].

One of the advantages of this radar set (including over AN/APG-77 used in F-22) may be considered high resolution and ability to effectively engage both air and surface targets.

The source for that is an ukranian article from 2006 that discusses the possibilities of how to upgrade ukranian AF Fulcrums in light of Ukraine-West-Russia love triangle. Of note, the original source does not talk about "high resolution" but rather the ability "to count the number of engine fan blades and hence paint a "portrait" of a fighter. I guess whoever wrote wiki entry knew (unlike ukranian aviation enthusiasts in 2006) that NCTR techniques like that existed at least since VIetnam for MSA radars and decided to obfuscate things a little.

The english wiki article part about "hybrid AESA" has no source at all, even though it has sources for other important info like spec numbers straight from the manufacturer.

Oh and speeking of official specs: "air-to-air regime, 100 deg zone, target RCS 3 m sq, clear background rear hemisphere aspect target detection range is 60 km"

https://www.niip.ru/catalog/eksportnaya ... siya/bars/

With specs like that it could be any type of "hybrid AESA", but still not the super radar that tracks Chinese J-20s however it wants.