F-35 vs Su-30/35

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2101
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 03:39

ata wrote:

I know for both F-22 and F-35 there are a lot of efforts to decrease canopy/pilot impact to RCS, but thin layer of gold, from my understanding is simply works as a mirror for optical range. If you put piece of mirror in the sky and will light it with a torch, in case of right angle it's will be invisible, because all the torch power will be reflected out from you. I guess it the same with gold coating for radio waves. But if only that mirror in the sky will be curved and you'll get appropriate angle you'll see very bright spot. I agree, in real life if F-22 or F-35 are high in the sky you likely can never see canopy at all. But you will see EOTS in that case.

in theory , if you can get in right angle , you can see stealth fighter very clear , however , what angle would that be ? , how often and easy to get in that angle ? , EOTS was also canted to reflect radar wave away

ata wrote:Bypass RAM is useless to discuss in this case, because both radars operate in the same band, so it simply transparent for Flanker radar. And what do you mean for "the radar was also canted to reflect enemy radar wave" - if radome is transparent, then it can reflect nothing. As far as I know this is a reason why radar is slightly angled in dome (in addition it gives lower aperture so, it's better for aerodynamic). But again, if Flanker is higher than F-35 then it may get directly at 90 degrees to F-35's radar plane.

Flanker radar and F-35 radar both work in X-band , but X band range from 8 Ghz to 12 Ghz , so while Irbis-e may work at 8 Ghz , APG-81 may work at 9.5 Ghz ..etc , i think you understand what i mean
look at the picture below here is what i call canted
APG-81
Image
vs
APG-63
Image
so you can see that in stealth fighter the radar is slightly canted to reflect enemy radar wave away from the source
to be able to look at APG-81 radar from 90 degree angle , Su-35 must be fly extremely close and extremely higher than F-35 ( you can draw a triangle and see for yourself )
Offline
User avatar

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2101
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 04:12

sergei wrote: "The F-35 cruise speed depends on mission" Su-35 too oddly enough, and 8 A2A sounds a lot lighter than 8 A2G for CAS

Cruise speed 1.1m for Su-35 is a small bonus for very good thrust-to-weight ratio discovered during tests.

cruise at mach 1.1 -1.2 clean is not really that rare , F-16 can do that too with 2 wing tip missiles
btw the main problem is not light or heavy , the main problem is drag , Su-35 cannot cruise faster than mach 0.85 with 10 AAM , while F-35 with 4-6 Aim-120/Meteor can cruise at mach 1.2 ( for around 150 miles )


sergei wrote:Earlier in the international air under the symbol "Su-35" was exhibited aircraft Su-27M.
"ВЕСТНИК РОССИЙСКОЙ АКАДЕМИИ НАУК" - Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Lagarkov Andrey - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics, Joint Institute for High Temperatures.
Mikhail Pogosyan - corr. Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of "Sukhoy ".
http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM
Source much more reliable than http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su35.htm ,data relied upon by your magazine it
some strange mix of Su-27,Su-37,Su-35 and Chengdu J-10b(J-10B: An upgraded variant of the J-10 from 2008) with engine never exist (AL-31MF)
You heard about this for the first time from me and you already know what and where it was applied?

ok , let just say your source is more reliable than mine , however as i have said Su-35 doesnt have different in material of outer airframe atleast not when viewed from frontal , it true that i didnt know Su-35 start to use composite for some of it's part , but you still cant prove that Su-35 use composite for outer part ( different from Su-27) that why i said it is likely they only done that for internal structure
sergei wrote:" I was talking about F-16 Block 50"
F-16A/ F-16 Block 50
Thrust 23,800 lbf/28,600 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 37,500 lb/42,300 lb Loaded weight: 26,500 lb
Thrust/weight: 0.6346/0.676 1.079
Su-27/Su-35
Thrust 27,700 lbf/31,900 lbf Max. takeoff weight: 67,100 lb/76,060 lb Loaded weight: 56,660 lb
0.8256/0.8388 1.26
And Su35 have advantage in acceleration vs F-16 Block 50


According to your number the different between thrust of F-16 Block 50 and F-16A is 4800 lbs
the different between thrust of Su-35 and Su-27 is 4200 lbs
so F-16 is only a little bit better in that aspect , however as i have explained before :
acceleration of an object = force/mass
Firstly ,force = thrust- drag , Su-27/35 is a much bigger aircraft than F-16 , so which one will have more drag ? , which one will have higher resultance force from the increased thrust ? i think we have the same answer
secondly , since acceleration = force/mass , that mean : with equal resultance force , the lighter ( lower mass ) object will accelerate faster , Su-27/35 is obviously alot heavier ( higher mass ) than F-16
with the same amount of thrust increase which fighter benefit more is quite obvious
Last edited by eloise on 14 Apr 2015, 05:10, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2101
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 05:09

ata wrote:. The main characteristic of ANY antenna in the world will be it's GAIN. For example aperture is absolutely unimportant because aperture in general only define gain. You can create huge aperture antenna, but if it's gain will be low, then such a size just useless. So, what in fact gain means? Frankly speaking it's how wide or thin antenna's beam. Of course it's not a definition (there are lobes, losses etc), but it's enough to understand the idea.
Look at this: http://www.aktivsb.ru/article-info1499.html
Compare left and right patterns at first picture. At right side antenna has very low gain because it transmit power to whole world in front direction. At the left side gain is much higher because it only sends signals in one thin beam (skip the lobes at the moment). All the power just in one point. Why is it important? Because in case of radar: LPI, non-LPI, no matter what engineers try to create the thinest reasonable beam possible. To bring all the available power in one point.


Beamwidth varies directly with wavelength and inversely with antenna size
for example : if operating frequency is 1 ghz and antenna is 1 meter then the beam width will be 25 degree ( same reason why the T-50 wing edge thing is not a radar but only a IFF system ) , inversely if the antenna is 10 meters in dimension then the beam width will be 2.5 degree
Higher wavelengths allow a smaller antenna to have the same gain.
For example, at X Band (3 cm); you need an antenna 45” in diameter to get a gain of 40 dB; while at S Band (10 cm); you need an antenna 150” in diameter to get the same gain of 40 dB.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Radar ... istics.htm
ata wrote:Do you remember I've calculated that at 100 km 2 degrees beam will give you 3,5 km spot? It's not exactly truth. It will be even bigger, but normally this kind of sizes measured at -3db, -10 db levels (it's all depend of agreement and standards). That size's spot will be about 10 sq. km. while Flanker size object (not it RCS) actual size will be about 10 sq. m. So only 1/1 million part of your energy will make sense. All the rest you spent to heat up atmosphere.

the part that spend heat up the atmosphere doesnt get intercepted by Su-35 sensor either :wink: , and Su-35 doesnt have radar receiver all over it's body but only very few part , accounted for less than 0.1% of it's surface area , as a result :) of all the signal come to Su-35 direction, only 1/1 million part will hit it's airframe , and 1/1000 will hit it's RWR antenna
ata wrote:The another theory. What electro-magnetic reflection means? Again, frankly speaking incoming wave generates some electric current in metal shape, and that current generates electro-magnetic field in back (this is very simplified theory, because for example dielectric materials also reflect some radio waves). In fact your target acts like secondary oscillator. The only difference it will transmit it's power in every direction. Let's say in every direction in the same level

wrong , if that was the case then it would be impossible to designed any stealth fighter , and all fighter of similar size will have equal RCS in all direction :?

ata wrote:. Let's calculate how big is your radar (1 m in diameter) from 100 km far away for antenna with 0 db gain.
Approximately it will be 1/4*10ˆ-11
We also have to remember about initial 1/1 million part of energy. Finally you'll get 1/4*10ˆ-17. It's -164 dB. While at target side it's just -80 dB (because Flanker's radar has approximately 1 sq. m size as well). About 80 dB difference.
Wow, isn't it? In fact because I simplified the idea (to show the origin of such high loss) it's not exactly correct. Look at this: http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/T ... on.en.html
Function (9) shows that received power is 1/Rˆ4 function (because antenna gain, RCS, transmitted power are constants). Even if you have 40 db antenna gain (which seems not really possible) and squared it's just 10ˆ8. If you have relatively high RSC it's another 10ˆ1. Even in that case it will be still 10ˆ-11 of transmitted power. While at target side it will be 10ˆ-5.
So, Flanker radar operates in fact not thousands, but million times higher signal level than that at F-35.

unlike RWR , radar only intended to receive it's own signal , if the flanker radar treat all signal it received as a target , then the radar screen will be clutter with thousand targets made by deceptive jammer , Irbis-e will be super easy to fool

ata wrote:So, if F-35 is able to detect it's signal from the noise why do you think it's a problem to do with million times better option (noise level is the same for both sides)? Yes LPI switches frequencies, but it's not like "from any to any" those peaks are still in X-band. And because Flanker radar is also X-band it will receive all of them. We can talk about fighting with the noise but believe me dealing with noise is huge part of radio tech and I need to take all my old books from the shelf to remember all the stuff. It's well known problem and it's discovered from the first phone-line in the world.
If you have any application to generate spectrograms for sound files try to do the following. Generate the file with several very short peaks with different frequencies. It will emulate LPI. Then apply some noise (it's possible with apps like SoundForge). Even you can do noise level similar to peaks level. Then generate spectrogram. It should look like this: http://audiophilesoft.ru/articles/quali ... fhg320.jpg
At your picture you'll see small bright dots - these are your peaks. If you can see it with your eyes, then it's possible to create algorithm to detect it. This is how LPI works.

As you said your self before , only a small part of energy from APG-81 hit the Su-35 , the rest heat up the air , hit the ground ..etc
How do flanker RWR discriminate between the signal come from APG-81 direction it's self and the signal from APG-81 that hit the ground , or bird first before reflected to the Flanker ?
And as i explained , since RWR cannot compute the distance to an moving air target so even if RWR on Su-35 some how detect APG-81 , the only information the Su-35 pilot will know is the direction that F-35 come from :D , no distance , no speed he cant attack it , and we back to low band radar problem , only helpful for early warning
Offline
User avatar

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2101
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 07:05

ata wrote:
Su-35 vs F-35 dynamics I'll leave to sergei, he's much better than me in this part
This was only to answer your statement that we can't trust Sukhoi as well as to LM. My idea is that Sukhoi statements are about things that a proved for a long time. Of course it's a point of discussion how effective Su-35 RAM coating for exaample. And I'll easily believe if you can find info or ideas why it's not that good. Because Su-35 "stealth" option is just an option. If they can do that, then why not? If it works, perfect, if not... then all the rest of advantages are still here.
In opposite, I've provided many reasons why stealth, LPI, EOTS are not that effective as LM wants us to believe.

the things is , you said Sukhoi statement is about thing that have been proved ,but they aren't
you said Su-35 will be better than F-35 in term of :
Speed : still to be discussed , while clean Su-35 fly faster than F-35 , it doesnt have better cruise speed or top speed with weapon
Radar : still to be discussed , Irbis-E likely to have better range , but APG-81 likely to have better ECCM , LPI
Armament : still to be discussed , but I think Meteor is a much better missiles than R-77
Maneuver : i think Su-35 is more agile
while I said F-35 is better than Su-35 in term of
Stealth : obviously
ECM : more effective due to stealth as I have explained several page ago
DIRCM : F-35 have DIRCM while Su-35 doesnt
IRST : even if we assume OLS-35 and EOTS are similar , F-35 still have DAS which give it 360 degree view
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4378
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 07:44

ata wrote:Every RAM only realise it's best when it's used specifically. If you use one after another or mix of them you'll get less performance for every of them.


Not true. Layered RAM has been tested in many occasions and there seems to be no noticeable degradation in performance compared to only using one layer optimized for one frequency range. It's only matter of putting layers in the right order and right thickness to achieve high absorption at all frequencies.

ata wrote:Moreover, it's not a big deal to make flat shape to be "stealthy". The biggest deal is to make the same for things like cockpit (btw, F-22 has one piece of "glass" version, while F-35 has a frame, which is also radio-reflecting element) - it's simply hard to paint a pilot with RAM as well.
What about radar? You can't protect radar with RAM. There are ways to reduce it's impact, but you can't terminate it anyway. Optical elements, the same problem, do you know if any RAM can be transparent?


Wrong again. F-35 does have a frame, but it doesn’t affect RCS as the frame is inside the cockpit glass. The glass has layers for absorbing and redirecting the radar energy and. This means very little (if any) radar energy gets within the cockpit. If any radar energy gets inside, it will further be attenuated when it goes through the glass again. PAK FA is the fighter which has very poorly constructed cockpit with external frame which creates a discontinuations that does reflect radar energy.

There are transparent RAM available:
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~kocabas/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ncomms7628.pdf

Figure 5d shows the variation of the microwave reflection from the cylindrical surface as a function of voltage. Even for a large curvature, the microwave reflection is suppressed by 45 dB at 2 V. This modulation is slightly less than the flat resonant surface due to the curvature of the device


http://www.cfoam.com/radar.htm

http://www.navysbir.com/13_1/138.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928574/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008622314005405

http://www.google.tl/patents/WO2010014648A1?cl=en

For example indium tin oxide and graphene can be used in a layer with good optical transparency and with very good radar absorbing properties, like -45 dB for highly curved structure (like cockpit glass).

ata wrote:Again and again, another problem - engines. You can't use effective RAM inside of engine nozzle. It means every time I can see part of it - I see it clearly. And of course turbine blades (which are visible from quite a wide angle from the rear) are very radar-bright as well.


Wrong again.

Image

Add the engine exhaust nozzle which is missing in this picture and it’s actually an extremely small angle where you could see the turbine blades at all. F-135 engine has a rather long exhaust tube after turbine blades before exhaust nozzle. This means the angle where the turbine blades could be visible is much smaller than for example Su-27 derivatives or PAK FA which have much shorter exhaust tube and regular exhaust nozzle. Their turbine blades are visible at much wider angles.

http://tx.technion.ac.il/~jetlab/11thSymposium/f135.pdf
Here is page 9 where it's stated that there is a fan duct blocker at the rear of the engine. So the turbine blades are blocked from rear view. It's likely that F-35 has higher RCS directly from behind, but it's also likely not be that huge due to all these features.
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 08:11

mk82 wrote:ata:

"So, of course F-35 can turn... but we're talking about distances like 100-150 km, which means Flanker already knows that F-35 in that direction and even if it disappeared from radar it will take 10-20 seconds to reach the range where it will appear again. Of course F-35 can attack at that time, but it will be using radar in that case, and we already discussed it mean the same as F-35 is not stealthy at that time."

Hang on a minute ata, a few glaring points:

1. You are assuming that the SU 35 will always have VHF radars to point them in the general direction of the enemy. In a shooting war, those VHF radars will be prime targets or suppressed ruthlessly. Good luck with SU 35s knowing where to look for F35s in the first place without the aid of long wavelength radars. That comes directly to my second point

2. I don't think the SU 35 radars will be detecting fully stealthed up F35s (internal carriage only) at 100 to 150kms. You even admitted that. I definitely don't think flying for 10 to 20 seconds more is going to improve the SU 35's chances of detecting the F35....the SU 35s will most definitely be using it's afterburners...it's IR signature will be similar to the sun (on IRST) and it still has a relative RCS of a barn....the SU 35s will simply be eating AMRAAMs in the face 10 to 20 seconds later.

3. I have never heard of the SU 35's EW system/RWR being able to detect LPI signals. You even admitted that! Lets stick to what the SU 35 can currently do rather than your theories. So a few F35s painting the SU 35s in LPI mode will not tipping off the Flankers that they are soon to be flying burning wrecks.

Actually, why don't we compare the PAK FA to the SU 35. If Tikhomirov (no doubt some smart guys work there) manages to create good LPI modes for the N036 AESA radar, I would love to see the results of mock engagements between the PAK FA and the SU 35...actually, I can tell you now, total slaughter of the SU 35 force, they will detect the PAK FAs much later and potentially have no idea that the PAK FAs have been painting them with radar period. If you haven't tweaked on to why the PAK FA will hammer the SU 35s, it is not because it flies faster or is more maneuverable, it's because it has much lower RCS, potentially harder to detect radar emissions and can potentially fight smarter if it has good networking capabilities. Qualities that the F35 will have.

Frankly, I consider the SU 35 to be a monkey model aircraft in comparison to the PAK FA. Although the Russian Air Force is going to cut the number of PAK FAs it is going to acquire, it is only getting relatively small numbers of SU 35s....funny that.

Personally, I think that APG 63 (v3), legion IRSTand EPAWSS equipped F15Cs will give the SU 35s a very good run for its money. The SU 35 is just ain't all that!


You need to better read what we're talking about. Even if my English is not that good, I believe main idea is quite clear. So, please read all that stuff again, because what you had just asked means you're out of the points we discuss.
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 08:21

If what ata is saying is right then LPI is going to track targets with minimal energy. Does that mean you cannot search for other targets in the direction of the tracks without revealing your position? And if your AESA relies on a single frequency at any one moment, does that mean your amplitude of the signal is dependent on the nearest track?


Because I have no detailed information about LPI, I can only guess. What I think is they just use wide, low gain beam with high Q factor which is switching frequencies in addition. If your processing is good enough you don't need focused beam to calculate azimuth to the target. This is also supported by the fact they need some time to collect the data. So, in fact LPI from this point of view is just the same for a pilot as normal scan mode, with only limited range. This is how I imagine that. Maybe I'm wrong, but even if they realised it in different way tactically if should not have another limitations than range.
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 09:13

just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4378
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 09:19

ata wrote:I've read that article. And some others as well. LPI is not a magic (as well as stealth) and concept is very clear. Bu again, please read this carefully: "to be detectable for it's own radar level of reflected signal must be at least comparable with noise level. In the meantime power of LPI signal received at target side will be THOUSANDS time higher than reflected back to F-35" - there is only one way how to avoid it. Receivers at F-35 side must the same time more sensitive. In fact thousands times more sensitive. And not simply "more sensitive" but with thousands times higher selecting ability. If they're not, then signal level received at target side will be always higher, and will be detectable easily. And then it's only a question of target radar if it's able to detect it. And I was surprised, but seems like S-300/400 missiles also has this option. So, it's pretty well know technology.


You don’t seem to really understand how RWR/ESM and radar system works. It’s true that the receiver of AN/APG-81 would need to be much more sensitive than the receiver of Sukhoi’s RWR. This is because radar is a two way system and RWR is a one way system. How could this much higher sensitivity be achieved? It’s because radar knows what, how and where it transmits and RWR/ESM system cannot know that.

1. BANDWIDTH: Current high-end AESA radars can use a total bandwidth of about 3-4 GHz and GaN AESAs have even wider like 10-15 GHz. This means APG-81 can spread the transmissions over this whole bandwidth. As it knows exactly the frequency it sends, listen to narrow bandwidth. For example: Let’s say APG-81 has a bandwidth between 8-12 GHz. It sends at exactly 9.073 GHz and listens to a bandwidth at say 1 MHz wide. Next it sends at 11.871 GHz with the same bandwidth. Sukhoi RWR cannot know what frequency the APG-81 is using and has thus constantly listen to the whole 4 GHz wide bandwidth. As receiver sensitivity is inversely proportional to bandwidth, this gives a huge advantage to AN/APG-81 compared to Sukhoi RWR. On the other hand fighter PESA and MSA radars have bandwidths of about 100 to 400 MHz and are thus much easier for RWR/ESM systems to detect.

2. GAIN. Radar transmits the energy in very tight beams and thus has very high gain. Basically AESA radar knows exactly where it sends beams and can listen to only those exact directions. RWR has to use very low gain (wide beamwidth) antennas as it has to listen to very wide areas of the sky. Fighter radar usually has a gain of about 35 to 40 dB. Fighter RWR antennas have gain that is usually very close to 0 dB in X-band. This gives the radar another big advantage.

3. SIGNALS: Radar knows exactly what kinds of signals it sends and RWR cannot know. LPI radar spreads the actual radar signals over wide frequency range and thus the transmitted power in any given frequency will be lowered. The energy in transmitted pulse is Pulse power multiplied with time. So with long pulses the power requirement is reduced. Long pulses are then compressed using pulse compression tech to get short pulse lengths. As the radar knows the coding for what it has sent, it can decode it back from the received RF energy using matched filters. RWR/ESM cannot know the coding as it can be totally random to it and is forced to use mismatched filtering with guesses about the coding. There may be spikes in the whole 4 GHz spectrum, but how an earth can you know what is just noise and what is part of actual radar signal?

AESA radars using digital beamforming technology have far superior control of signals to any PESA/MSA radar as they use analog beamforming technology. Very complex coding can be used and only processing power and software is the limit here. Signal advantage gives the radar a very big processing gain. This makes detecting and especially classifying the radar far more difficult (how do you know it’s F-35 and not F-22?). Also the average power of the radar is not diminished at all and it can still have very long range.

4. LOW SIDELOBES: This means the radar leaks very little power to other directions besides main beam. This means it’s very difficult to hear such radar other than when being directly illuminated. As the radar beam will last only for a very short duration (microseconds to milliseconds), there is very short time for RWR/ESM to work against the radar. Along with the bandwidth, gain and signals advantage the radar has, this makes the RWR/ESM work very hard against AESA radar. This makes it very hard to get the correct heading for the detected signals or even detecting the signal in the first place.

5. RANDOMNESS: All phased array radars can scan and track targets with random beams. They can also vary the beam shape with phase shifters. AESA radars can also do many other tricks like creating multiple simultaneous beams and varying beam properties for example by modulating the element amplitudes. This makes detecting and especially classifying the radar far more difficult.

6. POWER MANAGEMENT: AESA can vary the power they send in each beam and can thus use only as much power as required to search and track the targets. AESA radar also has less losses especially in the receive path than MSA or PESA radars have. The difference is about 3-4 dB. Another advantage is that AESA works with highest average power to peak power level. Radar works only with the average power (range equation for example use only average power). RWR/ESM on the other hand can work with peak power to detect the signal. All this gives much less RF power for enemy RWR/ESM systems to work with. It also makes estimating range far more difficult as the transmit power is not known unlike in other radar types.

LPI is not a mode, but a number of features all modern radars have. I agree it's definitely not magic, but it's not easy to implement and requires advanced hardware to accomplish. Of course all this is relative and what was LPI in 1970 is not LPI today. It's just that AESA radars have by far the best features of all radar types as they have the widest bandwidth, highest available gain, best control of signals and beams and best power management and randomness qualities. Given only the very wide bandwidth and high gain, AESA radar truly has huge advantage in sensitivity compared to RWR/ESM system. Together with all the other advantages, I would not be surprised if conventional fighter RWR/ESM systems can’t detect AN/APG-81 at all. Even latest tech systems might well need to be inside AN/APG-81 operational range to detect its presence. Especially so, if the aircraft carrying has a large RCS like Su-27 derivatives.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 09:22

ata wrote:
mk82 wrote:ata:

"So, of course F-35 can turn... but we're talking about distances like 100-150 km, which means Flanker already knows that F-35 in that direction and even if it disappeared from radar it will take 10-20 seconds to reach the range where it will appear again. Of course F-35 can attack at that time, but it will be using radar in that case, and we already discussed it mean the same as F-35 is not stealthy at that time."

Hang on a minute ata, a few glaring points:

1. You are assuming that the SU 35 will always have VHF radars to point them in the general direction of the enemy. In a shooting war, those VHF radars will be prime targets or suppressed ruthlessly. Good luck with SU 35s knowing where to look for F35s in the first place without the aid of long wavelength radars. That comes directly to my second point

2. I don't think the SU 35 radars will be detecting fully stealthed up F35s (internal carriage only) at 100 to 150kms. You even admitted that. I definitely don't think flying for 10 to 20 seconds more is going to improve the SU 35's chances of detecting the F35....the SU 35s will most definitely be using it's afterburners...it's IR signature will be similar to the sun (on IRST) and it still has a relative RCS of a barn....the SU 35s will simply be eating AMRAAMs in the face 10 to 20 seconds later.

3. I have never heard of the SU 35's EW system/RWR being able to detect LPI signals. You even admitted that! Lets stick to what the SU 35 can currently do rather than your theories. So a few F35s painting the SU 35s in LPI mode will not tipping off the Flankers that they are soon to be flying burning wrecks.

Actually, why don't we compare the PAK FA to the SU 35. If Tikhomirov (no doubt some smart guys work there) manages to create good LPI modes for the N036 AESA radar, I would love to see the results of mock engagements between the PAK FA and the SU 35...actually, I can tell you now, total slaughter of the SU 35 force, they will detect the PAK FAs much later and potentially have no idea that the PAK FAs have been painting them with radar period. If you haven't tweaked on to why the PAK FA will hammer the SU 35s, it is not because it flies faster or is more maneuverable, it's because it has much lower RCS, potentially harder to detect radar emissions and can potentially fight smarter if it has good networking capabilities. Qualities that the F35 will have.

Frankly, I consider the SU 35 to be a monkey model aircraft in comparison to the PAK FA. Although the Russian Air Force is going to cut the number of PAK FAs it is going to acquire, it is only getting relatively small numbers of SU 35s....funny that.

Personally, I think that APG 63 (v3), legion IRSTand EPAWSS equipped F15Cs will give the SU 35s a very good run for its money. The SU 35 is just ain't all that!


You need to better read what we're talking about. Even if my English is not that good, I believe main idea is quite clear. So, please read all that stuff again, because what you had just asked means you're out of the points we discuss.


No, I understand your English loud and clear. All I am hearing from you is yap yap yap....let's use stupid tactics for warmed over Flankers that will get it's pilots killed. So my points are very relevant to this discussion.

Geez, if I was a Russian fighter pilot, the last I want to do is to use your stupid tactics and get myself killed. Air combat is brutal....use stupid tactics and fly like a kapusta...you die. I consider tactics, techniques and procedures even more important than the technology itself. How you use the technology is very important.

This is not just about LM and it's claims about the F35. Think deeper...as I mentioned before, why do you think leaders in your (Russian) Air Force wants a PAK FA with many features of the F35/F22 (low RCS....LPI AESA radars....next gen EW systems...integrated high definition EO systems....high level of sensor fusion....broadband plus LPI networking)...those features are needed just to survive future air combat. Not the yesteryear concepts of a warmed up Flanker (a "Golden"/upgraded F15Cs will give it a run for its money)

You seem to to be trapped in your own world on why concepts/technologies like LPI waveforms, stealth etc doesn't work. Well a lot of these concepts/technologies do work and are proven...it's called the F22 Raptor (a lot of F35 technology is leveraged from the F22 Raptor). And why would Sukhoi be interested in integrating these technologies/concepts into the PAK FA if they don't work. Get with the program ata.

Eloise and Hornetfinn have provided very good technical arguments so far. Take heed Tovarisch! Frankly, you need to do more basic research on the F35 too (the internal carriage capabilities of the F35 is a classic one!)
Offline
User avatar

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2101
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 09:24

Lockheed Martin has defended the air-to-air capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) while conceding that the aircraft's performance in combat within visual range (WVR) will only be marginally superior to that of its fourth-generation and advanced fourth-generation counterparts.
Briefing Australian journalists at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility on 2 February, Jerry Mazanowski, senior manager of air systems in the company's strategic studies group, compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI. He said that in a typical combat configuration carrying four internally stored AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), the F-35 was marginally faster than the Su-30MKI carrying eight beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and no external fuel tanks; and that it was faster than the Eurofighter, Gripen C, Rafale and F/A-18 carrying four BVR and two WVR missiles and a single external fuel tank (two in the Eurofighter's case).
On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft, the F-35 was shown coming second best.
With a requirement involving the same acceleration and the aircraft tasked for a 600 n mile 'out and back' mission, Mazanowski said the F-35 was "nothing stellar but certainly not an underperformer in this category".
When accelerating from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 - important if evading a surface-to-air missile or in combat with other aircraft - the F-35 showed a comparable performance to its counterparts.
Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.
Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.
According to Mazanowski, the JSF joint programme office required the modelling to assume an F- 35 engine at the end of its life with 5 per cent fuel degradation and a 2 per cent reduction in thrust. The counterpart aircraft were given the benefit of the doubt wherever platform and systems performance were not clear - as, for example, in the assumption that all five would have active electronically scanned array radars operational within five years.
Modelling based on operational experience and simulation showed that 72 per cent of future engagements would be BVR, 31 per cent would be at transitional range (between 8 n miles and 18 n miles) and 7 per cent WVR.
Mazanowski acknowledged that these figures did not take account of BVR engagements that might develop into WVR engagements.
Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a "threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future".
He attributed this almost entirely to the F-35's superior stealth and situational awareness.
In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable. Although the F-35 was assumed not to be carrying externally mounted short-range AIM-9X missiles to avoid increasing its radar cross-section, Mazanowski praised the short-range performance of AMRAAM.
"The WVR environment, once you get there, is very awkward and very lethal. We think the F-35 may have some limited advantage in situational awareness with its DAS [distributed aperture system] and hopefully there would be enough wingmen to work their way out of the situation," Mazanowski said.
He added: "One guy has a little bit of an advantage in WVR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well."

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261728653/lockheed-martin-defends-jsf-s-close-in-capabilities
Offline
User avatar

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2101
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 09:31

ata wrote:Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system

F-35 will have support from ITALD, MALD-J, NGJ as well
ata wrote:stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m.

you sure?
Image
Image
Stealth reduced it's effectiveness at low frequency, but not that much
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4378
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 09:36

ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


No, as many have already demonstrated, stealth works well in many other frequencies besides X-band. Some features are less effective in other frequencies (especially lower frequencies), but still have considerable effect. For example the Serbians were able to get stable plots about F-117 only about 25 km away from their P-18 VHF radar without any jamming present. This same radar is capable of detecting regular fighter targets about 120-150 km away. I say that stealth has considerable effect on all radar frequencies.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 09:56

ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


You are right that S300s are not going to be deployed as standalone systems in competently configured IADS. But an IADS is not infallible either. It's all about tactics. Throw in multiple decoys, decoy plus jammers, wild weasels, potential cyber attacks, VLO aircraft and non kinetic/kinetic anti-radiation weapons from multiple directions vs an IADS crewed by personnel not used to these countermeasures...not a pretty sight. Lots of wasted missiles fired at phantom targets, IADS crewmen going into meltdown because their situational awareness has shredded to bits and nodes of the IADS being prime targets themselves. No S300/S400 is going to change that.

Actually, I have heard Russian EW helicopters successfully jamming S300s on the Kapustin Yar firing range...the S300 crewmen had no idea how to deal with the jamming. Having equipment does not mean squat. How well your crewmen are trained is more important.
Offline

ata

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2015, 15:38

Unread post14 Apr 2015, 10:03

hornetfinn wrote:
ata wrote:
just because S-400/500 can take down aircraft from 400 km doesnt mean they be able to detect stealth fighter at that range , the detection and tracking range again stealth fighter will be significantly shorter , there is no way S-400/500 can detect stealth fighter as soon as they get up from horizon , if S-300/400 doesnt care about stealth at all , then no one would waste time with low frequency radar
btw according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin


Well, it's quite off topic, but it's interesting that you don't realise how S-300 works (S-400 is just an upgrade, so the concept is the same). First of all read wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10

and all of them will be covered within this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

So, all those guys are able to work together as a complex to create multi-level defence system. If you'll read that carefully you can notice that huge system will be operating almost whole range of frequencies at their radars (including VHF/UHF + IR + optical). I'll get back to the radio theory later, but at the moment I just want to say, stealth is not working far out from from X-band). It maybe more or less effective at neighbour frequencies, but not really. So, for S-band radar F-35 will be just a target with RCS 5-10 sq.m. And because those units will be located geographically at different distances, then most likely F-35 will be downed by something like Buk system with guidance from S-300.
Each of that complex is able to cover area with 200 km radius. So, to close 4000 km border it will only take 10 systems.
Remember it's just impossible that S-300 is used "alone in a filed" how LM is drawing in their promos.
And because it's not alone, I don't believe it's possible "to neutralize S-400 and their cousin", because designers of S-300 of course expect you're going to neutralise them :)


No, as many have already demonstrated, stealth works well in many other frequencies besides X-band. Some features are less effective in other frequencies (especially lower frequencies), but still have considerable effect. For example the Serbians were able to get stable plots about F-117 only about 25 km away from their P-18 VHF radar without any jamming present. This same radar is capable of detecting regular fighter targets about 120-150 km away. I say that stealth has considerable effect on all radar frequencies.


С-125 which was used for F-117 has 20 km missiles range. It's low-range 60 years old system :D

you sure?
Image
Image
Stealth reduced it's effectiveness at low frequency, but not that much


Never tested :) But firstly it's claimed by our generals :) Secondly you can come to Moscow air show (at this year August for example) where S-300/400 are always shown and ask by yourself. I did, and guys told me "in general it's not a problem". And thirdly, because even at S band (I'm not even going lower) wavelength is almost 5 times higher it doesn't seem possible to create such a wide-band RAM.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests