tsarkar wrote:Karan, not quite correct. EW aperatures are forward facing rather than sideways, because that is the direction most threats are faced from. Fighters try to present their least profiles to AD radars, and the forward profile is the least one. No fighter on earth has sideways facing - and radiating - EW aperatures. Tempest (I incorrectly mentioned Tranquail in earlier posts) is in MiG-27 nose and vertical tailfin leading edge (not side spot).
No, not necessarily as there is no hard & fast rule per se that EW apertures only face the forward position alone! The more powerful Fighters with enough space for a proper EW fit, on account of space & fitment constraints, go for forward and aft fitments for a cone radiating outwards towards the front & towards the back, but as you can well imagine it leaves a "blind spot" on the side of the fuselage. But its no longer entirely certain, that all fighters in the world have only such an arrangement. This is a very sensitive area, and as such no OEM talks much on the topic, but buzz for the past few years, has been about compact solid state transmitters having advanced to the stage that ~200-240 deg coverage is mentioned, if not complete 360 degree. Plus methods are mentioned for near hemispherical coverage - at least versus GBAD using a variety of techniques from widely dispersed apertures. I have also seen public proposals of AESA based jammers which are located across airframes & even pods (a spherical installation - think of concentric rings one behind the other, but of AESA tiles/bricks) which provide sideways jamming. Basically, the field is developing constantly, and its by no means certain what we have today, is what is available today or not even fielded. Why, just a few days back, I learnt that GaN radars are already in public production and are being advertised as such.
But the larger point I was making was that the aperture I mentioned could be very well for the new EW fit. Remember, the apertures in this platform are not just for Tx but Rx as well, and the MiG-27 has long had an issue with space & blanking issues with even the latter. Plus, it is a test platform & a deliberate non standard fitment is also possible, for checking out ERP & other issues.
It is definitely an add-on & from what I have discussed, seems well in line with depictions of the system, small aperture, possible inlet. I guess we'll know for sure once details are out in a few years time..
We were discussing LSP aircraft determining IOC capabilities in 2010, that never had this system in the first place. No one was assessing 2012 performance with 2012 systems in December 2010. December 2010 IOC was done with what was available. I am simply refuting the then-prevalent PoV that Mk.1 design was perfect/close-to-perfect-theory or new-systems-added-one-ton-weight-theory. Both these theories are grossly incorrect. Not sure why you're defending those theories. FWIW, the Mk.1 specs in the picture posted by Shiv above lists EW suite as an external store.
You are of course, welcome to your opinion but I'll have to stick by mine that new systems did add weight & the provisos for systems continue to evolve. December 2010 IOC would of course be done with what is at hand, but it is important to note that even that has been achieved with mostly PV & TD aircraft, and hence even these are not reflective of production standard LSP, which too may see change before we have MK1 (40 aircraft). For instance, quite some time back, Business Standard notes that of the 10.5T aircraft w/7 pylons, fuel & 2 R73E, the designers would "save" some 300-400 kg taking off telemetry equipment and hoped to save further weight elsewhere, even while there was talk of the aircraft being 2T overweight. But we know now the weight of telemetry items was included & today the weight is around 1T vs originally specced but even here we have work in progress. So, clearly, the weight goals have been iteratively realized through the program and will continue to be. However, the lack of a dedicated press outreach organization or the like, prevents us from knowing what is what, until some event or the like comes along. Second, the specs posted by Shiv are interesting, but like I said, the next Aero India (circa FOC) will give us a better idea of whats on the actual aircraft heading for production & the one thereafter may give us the best view yet of production standard MK1s and what should be on the MK2. Right now, from what I determined, the MK2 fits are still in progress & MK1 improvement is still underway.
The reason I am fairly certain that an internal EW fit was contemplated, beyond the usual 7th pylon EW Pod thing which we all know about, was because a possible fit was publicly discussed, with the point that IAF requirements called for it. Now, whether it will make its appearance on MK1 or MK2, remains to be seen.
IAF Mk.2 shows much more area ruling to improve aerodynamics, and IN Mk.2 MLG is being re-designed. Mk.2 simply irons out Mk.1 performance deficiencies. It adds some incremental performance enhancements from Mk.1 as a positive side effect. The intent is to keep the empty weight constant while using a higher engine to compensate.
No issues there, but one thing is more avionics improvements are being contemplated and are in development. The AESA decision shows these may be introduced as upgrades (good to have versus essential to have) but some amount of design modification will have to be done to keep these inputs in mind. I'd rather they be conservative and stick with what they have currently itself, because a literature comparison shows it to be fairly up to date versus peers and contemporaries.
And in your pods-vs-internal EW discussions, normal fighter internal EW suites offer only X-Band jamming. Pods are must for wideband jamming. Sukhoi has a Su-30MKI/A/M variant that carries 3 pods for wideband jamming, to accompany standard Su-30MKI/A/M. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 04eb28a9aa
That is why we have EA-6 Prowler and the US Navy jammer equipped Hornets. If internal jammers were so good, they wouldnt be building these planes to carry pods.
No, normal fighter suites dont jam only X Band, that would be a very limited band. They jam what can be simply referred to as fire control bands (X, Missile seeker ones), while pods are used for "surveillance bands" (L,S etc). Nowadays, that distinction is somewhat going for a toss, because more & more missiles are cued by search radars in TWS, and with proper network centric cueing can home in one targets even how, but generally, since fighters & missile seekers remain in the X,K,Ku bands, the internal jammers remain at that level and are optimized for these bands.
Like I said, multi band transmitter jammers are common nowadays.http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Rad ... Italy.html
This is the one used on the MiG-35.
E- to G-band and H- to J-band self-protection radar jammer.
E-G: So thats 2-6 Ghz, corresponding to parts of IEEE LBand & SBand
H-J: 6-20 Ghz, corresponding to X, Ku, and a bit of K band
The E-G will be podded, and the H-J will be internal, as these are the usual airborne firecontrol & missile seeker bands.
Note, in particular:
Designed for installation aboard multi-role combat aircraft, the ELT/568(V)2 is a solid-state radar jammer that in all-up configuration incorporates a Jamming Source Unit (JSU), three high- and two medium band Antenna Array Units (AAU), one medium and two high-band Solid-State Transmitter Units (SSTU) and two cooling units. In a typical installation, the system's JSU is installed in the aircraft's centre fuselage, with the AAUs being located in the platform's wing roots, fore and aft in an underwing pod and in the base of its vertical tail surface. While not confirmed, Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems believes that ELT/568(V)2 can also be configured for all-internal installation if required
So to reiterate, multi band coverage, via multiple transmitters.
Basically, the standard fitment is for the high (fire control) bands to be fitted internally, while the low/medium bands are available as a podded version (versus surveillance radars).
And like Janes says, there is talk of an all internal fit being possible, provided the aircraft has space, volume, provisions for suitable modification etc. Not always the case, for legacy platforms which rarely if ever have even a few inches of space in key areas. The fitment also shows the typical forward (wing root) & backward (aft at base of its tail surface) fitment, whereas the pod would do the same, but for different bands. Given enough volume & space, much can be done.
Coming to the Su-30 "variant" - thats not really a variant per se, per reports it was a standard Sukhoi 30 MK model but carrying the new SAP pods which allow for more jamming options, but some degree of customization would have occurred for integration onto onboard avionics etc, but doubtful it is as comprehensive as the Growler which has huge amount of cabling for the EW mission. The Growler is not just a jammer, its a very well fitted out aircraft for the ESM mission.
The Prowler is pretty much obsolete and will find it hard to incorporate newer systems internally. The US has publicly noted or implied that even the ALQ-99 pods are finding it hard vs SA-21 level threats.
Internal jammers are good, but they complicate an aircrafts schema & most aircraft designers did not include EW suites in original development. Its only now they are considered as essential to the aircraft, as at one time, a gun was or then a radar. As such most fighters today, and almost all being designed today, are to carry an internal jammer. The only exceptions to the rule, as I mentioned, were the F22 and F35 but at least the latter now, is being prepared for the NGJ- Next Generation Jammer, with stealthy shaping to minimize signature.
Pods are useful for multi band coverage including exotic bands, like I noted earlier, and also in threat scenarios where the EW scenario is very intense. Eg multiple SA-3XX type platforms available versus legacy platforms - in which case more ERP you have, the better!