Karan M wrote:Your ranges are all over the place because they dont take into account the differing RCS of these various platforms, and even if they were cent per cent correct, they still put the Bars as capable of guiding AAMs into the respective targets at range. Tracking ranges for the Bars arent that different from the detection range, its more a question of keeping the target in sight long enough to build up a track.
My last on this. If PESA was the all that great, the IAF would not insist on an AESA radar for the MMRCA competition which resulted in the Rafale acquisition.
You literally don't seem to have any idea about the topic whatsoever, but are confidently making all sorts of predictions and prognostications. It would be amusing but for the amount of time wasted in responding to your confused statements.
PESA comes in various forms and flavors. The Bars was an intermediate stage between the MSA and AESA array with additional technology used to make a PESA with individual receivers in each receive stick in the antenna, allowing it to have excellent sensitivity.
Of course the IAF wants AESA, they are more reliable and offer more modes than a conventional single RF source driven radar. That does not mean they'll take a powerful PESA as on the Su-35 with nonchalance!
The Rafale's first tranche itself came with PESA till they could make an AESA.
You also don't seem to understand the topic at all. Scan angles matter. A Su-30 with Irbis can take a shot at its opponent, and then continue to track the target while going a full +120 degrees off boresight, making the opponents BVR shot lose energy while it continues to maneuver. Its not merely about AESA, PESA etc but also how the technology is implemented.
For the APG 77, one of the criteria was a 86 percent probability of getting tracking quality data in a single pass at it's maximum range. So no need for dwell time.
This is a perfect example of half knowledge and jargon max. All radars have dwell time! Radars operate on the basis of putting enough RF energy on a target, thats the "dwell". On top of it, they have to build a track file. In what manner and form can a radar build a track file with one pass when the target can go in any direction thereafter? That's how the information is computed and shown. Don't mix that up with the tracking mode itself, in which mode, every other radar can get weapons quality data for its ARH equipped missiles. What exactly do you think tracking information is anyhow?
And for your kind information, all radars specify a probability at specific ranges. You think this is some amazing thing you discovered. Its like the most basic thing to check for in radar development.
Those are the kind of performance metrics one should strive for. This is possible with AESA and hence my position that Bars should be replaced ASAP with Uttam rather than Irbis E. Clearly the first gen Uttam may not achieve that kind of tracking data fidelity but it will be a start which can be improved iteratively.
"Clearly the first generation Uttam may not achieve yada yada yada". Did the Uttam designers personally call you and inform you about its performance at different ranges. The Uttam is actually India's 4th airborne functional radar. India already has operational AESA modes via the Netra.
You are busy speculating about everyday figures and specifications as if they are magic sauce whilst ignoring the actual details of what makes AESAs special.
What makes you think Uttam doesnt have a specific probability function for a specific range? Do you seriously think they dont have that or that they need you to tell them it varies by different criteria and is specified for a variety of conditions?
If the tracking range for the Bars is the same as the detection range, the end result of the day after Balakot would have been different. After all the IAF recovered AAMRAMS fired from 100 km away which landed in Indian territory. But supposedly the SU-30s never got a "firing solution" at that same range.
This is again yet another example of muddled logic. Do you not even realize that a firing solution is not computed by the radar but the weapons computer taking into account the armament carried by the aircraft, and its a dynamic plot, constantly changing to boot?
This, when the IAF chief is on record stating that the R-77s had a range differential and had to be replaced with Astra? This is again referenced by credible accounts of the incident in AVM Subramaniam's account.
My ranges are all over the place because the detection range will vary with the rcs of the target.
If you had the ability to actually check your own sources you'd realize there is no RCS data quoted for the ranges you quoted! A F-16 can vary from anywhere between 5 sq mtr + with DTs and weapons to a 1 sq mtr target depending on RCS treatment. You are quoting early test results and muddling them up with radar ranges of a Bars variant available circa 2012, when its final production variant was finalized. On top of it, you dont even have an idea of what different radar modes are and how they function.
And saying "fighter size" target is also misleading. Bars may detect a J-11 or an F-15 at 270 km because both of those fighters have an rcs of 10 sq m +. But an F-16 has an rcs of less than 3 sq m, some say it is 1.2-1.8 sq m. Obviously the detection range will be reduced in such a scenario. The fundamental problem is that the SU-30 has an rcs of 10 sq m vs most other fighters today which have significantly smaller rcs. So those opposing fighters need a smaller/less powerful radar to detect the SU-30 whereas the SU-30 needs a more powerful radar to detect each other at equivalent distances. Also, given it's huge rcs the SU-30 by default needs an ECM pod when venturing into a hostile environment and hence the pictures of SU-30s with the SAP-518 flying in Ladakh last year.
What you dont seem to even understand here is that the Su-30 radar is far more powerful than those on it's comparable peers. Your non AESA F-16 radar has a measly range vs the Su-30s, so even without ECM the Su-30s radar with its clean profile and only weapons, head on, can easily hold its own vs a loaded F-16 with a less powerful radar and weapons and DTs hanging off its pylons. You don't even seem to understand how RCS works!
A loaded F-16 at 5 sq mtr will be detected at ~80% of the range a 14 sq mtr Su-30 (loaded with far more to make the equation even more conservative will). Where is the great advantage of low RCS? That advantage comes in only when one goes LO/VLO.
Of course the Su-30 will fly with a SAP-518 when it must. Same reason a F-16 will do likewise! Why wouldn't they take the option of taking the opponents radar completely off the table if they could. A SAP-518 size SPJ unit is anyhow capable of far more than a smaller system given its likely power output.
The IAF has 270 of these planes which is an enormous sunk cost. RCS reduction measures can only go so far and so increasingly it will have that handicap in air to air encounters as adversary radars and sensors increase in performance over the years. IMO the SU-30 in the IAF should play to it's strengths i.e. payload and range. And more and more strike weapons should be developed and integrated into it for long range strike escorted by Rafales.
The IAF has 270 of these aircraft which offer phenomenal sensor reach and coverage, way beyond most of their peers.
They have a 1 mtr dia dish, which if you actually knew about radar performance would realize allows them to maximize performance even without having to pump out more power and get detected earlier. The same reason the F-15 continues to be a lethal adversary in air to air combat and is retained by the USAF and can pass radar data to more discreet fighters to take undetected shots.
An IAF Mirage pilot on the Flanker vs F-16 post Astra
“Su-30 has its advantage in employment in certain areas and Mirage 2000 in certain areas. Together they make a very potent force. Being part of the same side, comparison of both is meaningless. But I can say this, head to head, Su-30 or Mirage 2000 are greatly superior to the Viper, and the reason is very simple, both are later designs than the Viper. They are not underpowered like the Viper and have better weapon range and radar range.”
“I haven’t flown the Su-30, however what I can say is Su-30 in the air is a nightmare for many because of its tremendous capability… because of its radar range, weapon range and load-out.”
Its a unique advantage which no other fighter possesses in the IAF and will allow them to continue to be the eyes and ears of the IAF fleet. Post upgrades they will likely far outperform the Rafale in this key aspect. We are only getting 36 Rafales for now. The Su-30s with Astra won't be escorted by Rafale in most scenarios, but will self-escort.
AnYway, my last on this. Let us hope that in the next encounter the results are the SU-30s going on the offensive whether vs the F-16s or J-11s or J-10s.
Thankfully. I hope next time you post, you at least understand the topic before wasting my time by engaging in diatribes.