Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2020 01:32

mody wrote:I doubt the Astra MK-2 will have a IIR seeker variant. Generally IIR seeker missiles will be used only for maximum ranges upto 40-50 Kms. The MICA-IR and ASRAM have similar ranges. A range greater than that will require the missile to be guided to within this range of the target, by the aircraft. This would make it similar to the R-27 IR guided missile.


Mica IR has a datalink. R-27TE does not have one, neither does the ASRAAM. The former is a BVR missile. ASRAAM and R-27TE are not true BVR missiles.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2020 01:35

Great find!! When was this pic released?
MeshaVishwas wrote:Well what do we have here! (Wingtips are loaded with the SAP pods)

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 521
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby MeshaVishwas » 08 Mar 2020 01:40

Yesterday itself on the official Twitter page of VayuSena.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Mar 2020 02:43

Karan M wrote:
mody wrote:I doubt the Astra MK-2 will have a IIR seeker variant. Generally IIR seeker missiles will be used only for maximum ranges upto 40-50 Kms. The MICA-IR and ASRAM have similar ranges. A range greater than that will require the missile to be guided to within this range of the target, by the aircraft. This would make it similar to the R-27 IR guided missile.


Mica IR has a datalink. R-27TE does not have one, neither does the ASRAAM. The former is a BVR missile. ASRAAM and R-27TE are not true BVR missiles.

Isn't the Mica a bigger missile too? It might very well outrange the asraam by a good margin.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2020 03:06

The ASRAAM has a larger diameter, is lighter, and the other dimensions are about the same or too insignificant to make a difference. They should have fairly similar kinematic performance under most real world scenarios. When you get into the short-to-medium range category other metrics like HOBS performance, survivability against countermeasures, and concept of employment dominate. We aren't talking about AIM-54's being launched at Soviet bombers at very long ranges here. These missiles are optimized for much shorter ranges.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Mar 2020 03:15

brar_w wrote:The ASRAAM has a larger diameter, is lighter, and the other dimensions are about the same or too insignificant to make a difference. They should have fairly similar kinematic performance under most real world scenarios. When you get into the short-to-medium range category other metrics like HOBS performance, survivability against countermeasures, and concept of employment dominate. We aren't talking about AIM-54's being launched at Soviet bombers at very long ranges here. These missiles are optimized for much shorter ranges.

True but wouldn't even 50lbs be a decent difference in a missile that small. Especially if it's fuel weight?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2020 03:20

Where is the conclusion that one missile has 50 lbs worth of more propellant coming from?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2020 05:02

CM,

The advantage of a datalink is that it permits proper fire control data to be passed till the seeker locks on in LOAL mode and allows rapid evasive maneuvers to be taken into account. A seeker is at the end of the day, a straw through which photons impact its FP array and that straw is basically driven on gimbals which seek to ensure it doesnt lose track of the target. However, if a bunch of flares or DIRCM are used, or the aircraft just happens to move outside the gimbals limits, the seeker's lock is broken and it seeks to reacquire. A datalink basically gets you to the point that this becomes very improbable, i.e. a high grade lock from the seeker.

Kinematics wise, I think both missiles are very similar, ASRAAM and Mica. Length and dia are practically the same. ASRAAM is very much a long stick WVR weapon. Won't be surprised if IAF flies fighters with mixed missile profiles - ASRAAM, R-73E, Astra variants and even upgraded ERs (R-27 w/new seeker).

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Mar 2020 05:51

brar_w wrote:Where is the conclusion that one missile has 50 lbs worth of more propellant coming from?

Not saying that all the 50lb weight difference is in fuel of course but considering that the dimensions, and warhead weight are similar, what's the difference a result of?

A quick Google search reveals that the mica is advertised as an outright medium ranged bvr missile unlike the asraam, which is mostly seen as a CCM. Range difference of 80vs 50km in favor of Mica. The fact that the mica has a data link and a arh version also suggests that there is a range difference

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8870
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 08 Mar 2020 06:03

Cain Marko wrote:Not saying that all the 50lb weight difference is in fuel of course but considering that the dimensions, and warhead weight are similar, what's the difference a result of?


There are several things that can affect the missile weight least of which is the fact that the MICA-IR shares its design with the MICA-RF and the design and the requirements could be the result of the added weight as in BVR combat, trajectories and the ability to loft does impact performance and in turn design. ASRAAM has been designed to be employed as a short to medium ranged weapon and be operated alongside a dedicated 7" AMRAAM or more recently the Meteor. Having, or not having, a data-link does not affect the kinematic performance of the missile but yes it does impact the engagement envelope (Just look at how the engagement envelope increased on the Block II AIM-9X for example when they added the data-link). This is just an indication of how the weapon is meant to be employed and how it complements other weapons its users employ. Kinematically, the performance would be very similar but like I wrote in my previous post these are short to short-medium ranged weapons and as such absolute range (which is what forums focus 100% energy on) is not that important - other design and CONOPS parameters are. The most important factor is how the seeker handles in a contested situation and how it complements the other missiles it is carried with. Given the UK (primary ASRAAM user) is buying the AIM-120D's with its improved HOBS performance over the AIM-120C they may not see much utility in adding a data-link to the ASRAAM and just wait till the air launched CAMM variant is fielded. The US which will gradually phase out the AIM-9 from its inventory thought that this would be a good feature and developed the block II 9X. It is just a function of how you wish to employ the complement of missiles you have.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 08 Mar 2020 06:20

tandav wrote:
tandav wrote:Quick question on AAMs

What is the probability of AAMs approaching A/C from the rear quadrant in the terminal phase of the intercept? In my mind and as per most movies I have watched most AAM in general approach the A/C in tail chase mode post launch. How true is this observation? Is the tail chase condition a higher probability only when the A/C MAWs detects the AAM and pilot initiates evasive maneuvers?



Any answers on this query?

Movies are for entertainment purposes... not reality :wink:

Fantasy:
Some of these movies show an AAM chasing after the plane even after evading the first pass ... and then second pass ... and so on.

Reality:
AAM makes one pass at its target and that’s it. Intercepts occur mostly in the non-powered coasting phase. Most AAMs only do 10sec motor burn. Even for dual-pulse it’s one pass at the target; it just provides a better kinematic performance in the end game.

To answer your question, where the missile approaches/hits has too many variables to take into consideration. Besides launch profiles and merge approaches, Different types of maneuvers paired with EW/ECCM breaks AAM lock.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 521
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby MeshaVishwas » 08 Mar 2020 09:59

Aditya_V wrote:SAP or Dare Siva pod?

SAP-518 integrated on Su-30MKI wing tip stations.

It's an electronic counter measure podded system. Impregnable.

Extremely effective against radars & EM/RF missiles in its operating band of 5-18GHz.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12364 ... 32160?s=19

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12164
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Mar 2020 15:57

Thanks

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby shaun » 08 Mar 2020 16:27

or DARE’s High Band Jammer (HBJ) pod ??

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby dkhare » 10 Mar 2020 01:08

MeshaVishwas wrote:Well what do we have here! (Wingtips are loaded with the SAP pods)

Interesting. There was a lot of chatter about limited flight envelope with those SAP-518s, issues interfacing with RWR, etc. I wonder if these are the same or some updated indigenous ones. HVT says 518s so...

The MKI seems to be armed for an air defense mission - 2 different types of R-27s - IR & RF and practice R-73s. No R-77s.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 10 Mar 2020 01:25

@ dkhare: There is an excellent post by KaranM on this very topic. Go here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7634&p=2419473#p2419473

Gold mine of info!

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby dkhare » 10 Mar 2020 03:08

Rakesh wrote:@ dkhare: There is an excellent post by KaranM on this very topic. Go here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7634&p=2419473#p2419473

Gold mine of info!


Thank you sir! @KaranM - Gold mine it is.

So, it has the right bands to jam surface-to-air, air-to-air, and FCRs. And as KaranM mentions, with a mere 6 AAMs, it may NOT be as limiting on the flight envelope after all. It would be safe to assume that for air defense ORPs / CAP missions our MKIs with the standard mix of R-27xx & R-73s could be using the SAP-518s for self-protection jamming.

I don't know if SAP-518s were employed on Feb 27th or not, but along with extreme kinematic maneuvering, superior training & tactics, (and maybe employment of these pods), we were able to make AIM-120C5s miss even inside 30 KMs range. For our preeminent Air Dominance platform, I was always puzzled about the missing self-protection jammer (SPJ) piece for the MKI - this fills in the missing piece(s).

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby fanne » 10 Mar 2020 04:54

I am very glad to read this. To the mod who had deleted one of my post - I had done the search, but not within BR, just www and this info did not show up. The only thing showed up was SAP-x18 bad/good etc., India getting it and then not getting it.

Speculation Alert -I wonder why R-77 is not part of this lineup with SAP-518? Is it because it is not compatible (meaning that the link may get jammed between 30mki and R-77 when 518 is working)? Could that explain lack of BVR shot (apart from range or limited carried number, if they were carried at all). Maybe IAF has wargamed it and found that with SAP-518, AMARAAMs are useless, but so is R-77 (all frequencies get jammed). In that case R-73, superior MKI handling is the way to go and kill soolah. R-27 for long range IR shots (I would imagine low probability of intercept if the opponent is expecting it).
This may explain why IAF was desperate to get near the solah, why solah missed c-5, and why they turned and ran, because at WVR, it would have been a slaughter of solah.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Mar 2020 06:30

fanne wrote:I am very glad to read this. To the mod who had deleted one of my post - I had done the search, but not within BR, just www and this info did not show up. The only thing showed up was SAP-x18 bad/good etc., India getting it and then not getting it.

Speculation Alert -I wonder why R-77 is not part of this lineup with SAP-518? Is it because it is not compatible (meaning that the link may get jammed between 30mki and R-77 when 518 is working)? Could that explain lack of BVR shot (apart from range or limited carried number, if they were carried at all). Maybe IAF has wargamed it and found that with SAP-518, AMARAAMs are useless, but so is R-77 (all frequencies get jammed). In that case R-73, superior MKI handling is the way to go and kill soolah. R-27 for long range IR shots (I would imagine low probability of intercept if the opponent is expecting it).
This may explain why IAF was desperate to get near the solah, why solah missed c-5, and why they turned and ran, because at WVR, it would have been a slaughter of solah.

R27 might work even the EM version considering it is SARH and gets continuous guidance from BARS

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby fanne » 10 Mar 2020 07:16

The whole argument is sap-518 perhaps jams all frequency in certain frequency spread. In that there is no communication, not even for r-27. Unless sap-518 shuts for some time to let the signal go through, making itself vulnerable to opposition missiles.
The IR version of r-27 will work fine

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Mar 2020 09:36

I thought the pic that started this discussion showed the MKI kitted out with R27s - are they all IR versions?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 10:57

fanne wrote:I am very glad to read this. To the mod who had deleted one of my post - I had done the search, but not within BR, just www and this info did not show up. The only thing showed up was SAP-x18 bad/good etc., India getting it and then not getting it.

Speculation Alert -I wonder why R-77 is not part of this lineup with SAP-518? Is it because it is not compatible (meaning that the link may get jammed between 30mki and R-77 when 518 is working)? Could that explain lack of BVR shot (apart from range or limited carried number, if they were carried at all). Maybe IAF has wargamed it and found that with SAP-518, AMARAAMs are useless, but so is R-77 (all frequencies get jammed). In that case R-73, superior MKI handling is the way to go and kill soolah. R-27 for long range IR shots (I would imagine low probability of intercept if the opponent is expecting it).
This may explain why IAF was desperate to get near the solah, why solah missed c-5, and why they turned and ran, because at WVR, it would have been a slaughter of solah.


This kind of unwarranted speculation, derailing discussions is why posts get deleted. Stop and think for a moment. You think anyone would introduce a SPJ with it affecting their primary BVR armament? Would Russia do this? Is it not obvious that the number of R77 rounds in service are valuable in both AF and they would try to conserve their lifetime hours.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 10:59

fanne wrote:The whole argument is sap-518 perhaps jams all frequency in certain frequency spread. In that there is no communication, not even for r-27. Unless sap-518 shuts for some time to let the signal go through, making itself vulnerable to opposition missiles.
The IR version of r-27 will work fine


Please research a bit more about how jamming would occur rather than make such bizarre claims please. Next thing we know, IDRW will carry an article stating your incorrect speculaton as fact.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 11:14

dkhare wrote:
Rakesh wrote:@ dkhare: There is an excellent post by KaranM on this very topic. Go here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7634&p=2419473#p2419473

Gold mine of info!


Thank you sir! @KaranM - Gold mine it is.

So, it has the right bands to jam surface-to-air, air-to-air, and FCRs. And as KaranM mentions, with a mere 6 AAMs, it may NOT be as limiting on the flight envelope after all. It would be safe to assume that for air defense ORPs / CAP missions our MKIs with the standard mix of R-27xx & R-73s could be using the SAP-518s for self-protection jamming.

I don't know if SAP-518s were employed on Feb 27th or not, but along with extreme kinematic maneuvering, superior training & tactics, (and maybe employment of these pods), we were able to make AIM-120C5s miss even inside 30 KMs range. For our preeminent Air Dominance platform, I was always puzzled about the missing self-protection jammer (SPJ) piece for the MKI - this fills in the missing piece(s).


Thank you. I dig out information from time to time and place it on the forum. Mostly, it gets missed till I go and dig it out again.

Yes, it would reasonable to note that with 6 AAMs, the Su30 could deploy the SAP-518. Note that in the RMAF flying display with SAP-518, it too had an exact 6 pylons fitted out.

More than six pylons here too in an exercise against the US Navy.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y5PhNC_aRVA/U ... erski3.jpg

The Algerian Su-30 MK (A) again, 6 pylons fitted out.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kmldial70/st ... 32/photo/1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EP4cMxbUUAMue6G?format=jpg

Again, let's see a recent airshow this year, with a static RMAF Su30 MKM. This had 8x pylons fitted out.

Image

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... bility?amp

Note the 4× Kh31s and 2× R77s on the wings, but 2x additional R77s between the engines too.

It operates from the range of 5-18 Ghz, and hence its primarily meant for air to air and missile guidance radars. Though of course, there are some ground to air FCRs in X band too, logically, it would mean the jammer affects them if the aircraft is pointed towards them.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2383
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby manjgu » 10 Mar 2020 12:03

How does a escort jammer work differently than a individual jammer?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 12:09

More power to cover an entire formation, different antenna placement (depending on whether its meant for air to air or air to ground).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 12:19

Su-30 MKA (Algeria) with SAP-518 and Kh-31P.
https://twitter.com/KitadicaCool/status ... 7980919808

Su-30 MKM (Malaysia) with SAP-518 and 6x pylons
https://scontent.fblr1-4.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=5E91D01F

Su-30 SM (Russia) with SAP-518 and 4xR-27 + 2x R-73 in Syria (2015) and 4x empty pylons (bombs dropped)? Were deployed with this configuration, so this is not a display config but an operational one.
https://battlemachines.files.wordpress. ... /11/44.jpg

This one, 2x R-27 + 2x R73 and 4x empty pylons for likely, bombs
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wo7CSLydh8M/ ... 5229_1.jpg

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Kartik » 10 Mar 2020 12:23

Karan, great posts as usual.

So could a single MKI equipped with the SAP-518 or DARE's High Band Jammer wing tip pods be able to act as an escort jammer for a package of say 4 fighters? Can it jam multiple enemy airborne radars simultaneously? (superfluous question- the answer is in my next post - apparently it protects the host aircraft primarily)

One question about the SAP-14 escort jammer pod, is it generally along similar lines to what Saab is advertising with the Arexis Low Band Jammer pod?

This is touted as an all-out escort jammer pod

"Our focus at the moment is to do the escort jammer – a pod to go on a few aircraft to accompany a strike package," says Petter Bedoire, Saab's head of electronic warfare marketing and sales. Currently, such duties must be performed by the US Navy's Boeing EA-18G Growler fleet, he notes.

A deployable stand-in jammer version is also being developed, which Bedoire describes as "like an annoying fly", based on its ability to generate a false target to confuse enemy air defence systems.

..
So-called quadrant receiver and transmitter systems housed within the aircraft's wing-tip pylons can provide a "spotlight jammer" capability, he notes.


and this article on the Saab Arexis LJP

EAJP employs advanced jamming functions to protect the aircraft against threat radars, and also provides an electronic attack (EA) function to disable transmitters.
..

In service, EAJP could be carried by select aircraft to act as EW escorts in a similar role to that currently undertaken by the U.S. Navy’s EA-18G Growler.

An Arexis pod displayed at the time had large fins to house VHF/UHF antennas, with L- and S-band e-scan arrays in the front and rear of the pod. However, the pod that is under test is more slender and is finless. It is around 4 meters (13 feet) long and weighs around 350 kg (770 pounds).


Arexis LJP weighs 350 kg, which is not light by any means. How much does the SAP-518 and SAP-14 weigh?

Image

Su-30MKI with SAP-518 and SAP-14 pods as well as a bunch of other weapons.
Last edited by Kartik on 10 Mar 2020 12:30, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Kartik » 10 Mar 2020 12:28

It also seems like the Russian AF's experience in Syria may be providing clues to the IAF on employing the SAP-518 more widely. i.e. assuming the SAP-518 wasn't in use after Balakot, but I could be wrong.

Russian Su-30 SMs to be fitted with SAP-518 jamming pods following Syrian experience

Russian Su-30SM fighter jets will be equipped with the latest electronic jamming SAP-518 stations. The decision was made by the Aerospace Forces according to the Syrian experience. The stations can protect the aircraft from air defense and air missiles. They jam targeting systems and deviate missiles from the assigned trajectory. Military experts believe the stations will considerably enhance the survivability of Russian jets, the Izvestia daily writes.

Aerospace headquarters told the newspaper the Syrian experience prompted to equip multirole Su-30SM with SAP-518 jamming stations by the end of the year. They will be delivered in the framework of large-scale modernization and technical re-equipment program of the forces.

Active jamming individual protection station SAP-518 was designed by Kaluga Research Radio-Technical Institute. It protects the aircraft from strikes by modern and prospective surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. The station is specifically effective against missiles with active radar self-targeting systems. It also jams aircraft radars and ground and seaborne air defense.

The latest electronic achievements are used in SAP-518, including powerful broadband active antenna arrays. The station is mounted in two suspended containers on the wingtips. One container carries the receiver to determine emission frequency. The second one holds digital radio frequency memory with a jamming transmitter.

SAP-518 selects the most dangerous targets and produces effective programs to suppress them. The device uses the so-called digital frequency memory technology. Multichannel memory devices can receive and store hundreds of radio signals. The system can thus generate dummy targets which are difficult to distinguish from the real ones. The signals are actually radio portraits of various targets. The system actually misinforms the adversary and it has to spend a major resource to track dummy targets which decreases the aiming efficiency.


Expert Alexey Leonkov believes the jamming stations will considerably increase Su-30SM survivability in the areas of air defense operation.

"The main SAP-518 mission is to protect an individual aircraft. It operates as an antiradar and constantly sends distorted information to adversary radars. It reflects the signal with delay, distorts the distance to the target, as well as speed and angle position. It impedes the radar in detecting targets, determining their parameters and forming the necessary information for the weapons," he told the Izvestia.



Seems like a must-have for the Su-30MKI!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 12:32

Karan, great posts as usual.

So could a single MKI equipped with the SAP-518 or DARE's High Band Jammer wing tip pods be able to act as an escort jammer for a package of say 4 fighters? Can it jam multiple enemy airborne radars simultaneously?

I'm assuming that the SAP-518 pod needs to be pointing in the direction or quadrant in which the enemy airborne or ground missile guidance radars are and then when turned on it jams and spoofs them with false targets. Or does it allow targeted jamming of an enemy aircraft using what is termed in the article below as "spotlight jamming" that escort jammer pods may provide?


These can act as escort jammers but they limit the freedom of the formation then. You'd rather have each Su-30 with its own SAP-518s and maneuver independently. Yes, the SAP-518 needs to be pointed towards the target, and so they are most useful head-on, when you approach the opponent for a BVR weapons release for instance, and want to reduce his radar range, plus deny his missiles an easy opportunity to lock on.

https://www.ausairpower.net/Other/Su-30 ... osi-1S.jpg

Su-30MKI with SAP-518 and SAP-14 pods as well as a bunch of other weapons.


Yes, this is the envelope limited configuration. Check out the special pylon for the SAP-14, it includes liquid cooling channels.


One question about the SAP-14 escort jammer pod, is it generally along similar lines to what Saab is advertising with the Arexis Low Band Jammer pod?

This is touted as an all-out escort jammer pod

"Our focus at the moment is to do the escort jammer – a pod to go on a few aircraft to accompany a strike package," says Petter Bedoire, Saab's head of electronic warfare marketing and sales. Currently, such duties must be performed by the US Navy's Boeing EA-18G Growler fleet, he notes.

A deployable stand-in jammer version is also being developed, which Bedoire describes as "like an annoying fly", based on its ability to generate a false target to confuse enemy air defence systems.

..
So-called quadrant receiver and transmitter systems housed within the aircraft's wing-tip pylons can provide a "spotlight jammer" capability, he notes.

and this article on the Saab Arexis LJP

EAJP employs advanced jamming functions to protect the aircraft against threat radars, and also provides an electronic attack (EA) function to disable transmitters.
..

In service, EAJP could be carried by select aircraft to act as EW escorts in a similar role to that currently undertaken by the U.S. Navy’s EA-18G Growler.

An Arexis pod displayed at the time had large fins to house VHF/UHF antennas, with L- and S-band e-scan arrays in the front and rear of the pod. However, the pod that is under test is more slender and is finless. It is around 4 meters (13 feet) long and weighs around 350 kg (770 pounds).
Arexis LJP weighs 350 kg, which is not light by any means. How much does the SAP-518 and SAP-14 weigh?



Yes, the SAP-14 is a high power pod which is very similar in function to the above pod. Its meant to jam S & L Band arrays however, it does not jam VHF/UHF radars.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 12:36

Kartik wrote:It also seems like the Russian AF's experience in Syria may be providing clues to the IAF on employing the SAP-518 more widely. i.e. assuming the SAP-518 wasn't in use after Balakot, but I could be wrong.
Seems like a must-have for the Su-30MKI!


We don't know whether the SAP-518 was deployed on the Su-30 MKIs on patrol but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.
Also, we have had the SAP-518 for a long while now, from around 2014-15 at least.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Kartik » 10 Mar 2020 12:38

BTW, what happened to DARE's High Band Jammer pod? It was supposed to replicate the functionality of the SAP-518 and not have the drawback of interference with the indigenous RWR..could it be the DARE HBJ in the picture with the IAF Su-30MKI and not the SAP-518?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 13:37

Kartik wrote:BTW, what happened to DARE's High Band Jammer pod? It was supposed to replicate the functionality of the SAP-518 and not have the drawback of interference with the indigenous RWR..could it be the DARE HBJ in the picture with the IAF Su-30MKI and not the SAP-518?


The item should be in development/testing. The tips of the SPJ in the IAF pic are oval, so likely, the SAP-518.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 14:14

DCMAWs sensor and MFD display - its clearly an imaging sensor. Note the RGB display below shows people approaching the sensor etc. Depending on the where the DCMAWS display has been set up, sensors likely oversaturated w/light etc, but still, gives an idea of the sensor itself.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5fw2B1U8AA ... ame=medium

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 Mar 2020 14:22

Prasad, did you make it to the EW conference?

There would have been a talk on New Generation Airborne EW/EOSystems in Indian Scenario by DARE and Development and Concurrent Production of Current Technology EW Systems in India by BEL .

Would appreciate a synopsis of our current programs and where we are.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby maitya » 10 Mar 2020 15:44

Karan M wrote:
Kartik wrote:BTW, what happened to DARE's High Band Jammer pod? It was supposed to replicate the functionality of the SAP-518 and not have the drawback of interference with the indigenous RWR..could it be the DARE HBJ in the picture with the IAF Su-30MKI and not the SAP-518?


The item should be in development/testing. The tips of the SPJ in the IAF pic are oval, so likely, the SAP-518.

Do we know the weight of the SAP-518?
There's been multiple quotes it's too heavy and that "... it renders Su-30MKI as a transport aircraft ..." etc
IIRC some of these concerns regarding it's weight and reducing Su-30MKIs operating envelope significantly has made to some CAG reports etc.

Plus there were issues it not integrating with our Tarang RWR etc.

But the pics that you have shared above, implies quite wide-spread deployment etc.

Betw, read somewhere the HBJ pod is at 100kg kg ballpark levels similar to that of EL-8222WB and that of R-73E/Aim-9 levels - so a wingtip deployment would be very much possible.
Plus if we get an all-digital Dhruti RWR solution on Su-30MKI implemented, then that with HBJ would be an enviable ECM combo.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby ranjan.rao » 10 Mar 2020 16:29

I know it's IDRW, but quite a big claim, esp in contradiction to what has been mentioned a few posts above
http://idrw.org/i-derby-er-and-astra-mk ... mki-fleet/

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is planning to its integration to its entire fleet of 272 Su-30MKI fleets with indigenously developed Astra Mk1 Beyond Visual range air to air missile starting from 2022 onwards and also actively considering placing orders for the upgraded Rafael Advanced Defense Systems developed I-Derby ER (extended range) beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) with range of 100km. Astra Mk1 and I-Derby ER both have a range of over 100km and both will compliment each other when integrated into Su-30MKI fleet after aging Russian-made Vympel R-77 (AA-12 ‘Adder’) AAMs are phased out of service due to lack of upgrades to the missile system over the years and poor shelf lives. In an audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has noted that nearly half the missiles tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were aging much before their shelf lives. India had procured over 2000 Vympel R-77 for its Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s, and MiG-21 Bisons fleet but plans are in the fold to replace them entirely instead of procuring more of the same missiles since Russia has failed to rectify its faults. Air Chief Marshal Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria has confirmed that Astra Mk1 is at par with AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM missiles which Pakistan Air Force (PAF) used in its failed attempts to shoot down a Sukhoi-30MKI last year and lack of firing clearance from Vympel R-77 could have contributed to this decision of arming entire Su-30MKI fleet with I-Derby ER and Astra Mk1 Medium-range air-to-air range-Missile.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Kartik » 10 Mar 2020 23:43

ranjan.rao wrote:I know it's IDRW, but quite a big claim, esp in contradiction to what has been mentioned a few posts above
http://idrw.org/i-derby-er-and-astra-mk ... mki-fleet/

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is planning to its integration to its entire fleet of 272 Su-30MKI fleets with indigenously developed Astra Mk1 Beyond Visual range air to air missile starting from 2022 onwards and also actively considering placing orders for the upgraded Rafael Advanced Defense Systems developed I-Derby ER (extended range) beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) with range of 100km. Astra Mk1 and I-Derby ER both have a range of over 100km and both will compliment each other when integrated into Su-30MKI fleet after aging Russian-made Vympel R-77 (AA-12 ‘Adder’) AAMs are phased out of service due to lack of upgrades to the missile system over the years and poor shelf lives. In an audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has noted that nearly half the missiles tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were aging much before their shelf lives. India had procured over 2000 Vympel R-77 for its Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s, and MiG-21 Bisons fleet but plans are in the fold to replace them entirely instead of procuring more of the same missiles since Russia has failed to rectify its faults. Air Chief Marshal Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria has confirmed that Astra Mk1 is at par with AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM missiles which Pakistan Air Force (PAF) used in its failed attempts to shoot down a Sukhoi-30MKI last year and lack of firing clearance from Vympel R-77 could have contributed to this decision of arming entire Su-30MKI fleet with I-Derby ER and Astra Mk1 Medium-range air-to-air range-Missile.


It has already been integrated with the Su-30MKI, so this blurb is wrong at the very start. I would request you not to post IDRW posts here. They're stating nothing new and just rehashing that other articles have posted. And rehashing it very poorly, if I may add.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Kartik » 10 Mar 2020 23:45

Karan M wrote:DCMAWs sensor and MFD display - its clearly an imaging sensor. Note the RGB display below shows people approaching the sensor etc. Depending on the where the DCMAWS display has been set up, sensors likely oversaturated w/light etc, but still, gives an idea of the sensor itself.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5fw2B1U8AA ... ame=medium


Oh wow..the first time I've seen the MAWS display that will most likely be seen in the Su-30 cockpit.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19588
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 11 Mar 2020 00:42

:) I keep digging up stuff, only a handful of folks follow it and remember. LOL. Story of my life.

Meanwhile, from October 2015 I found my own crib posts.

Karan M wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Thanks Karan for the elaborate info.

I assumed the former was now a given considering we were deploying the pod in multi national exercises as well..

Image


We did deploy the pod as our "standard", but it had severe issues interfacing with the Russian and Indian avionics on the Su-30, in particular the radar. The two are supposed to work in sync with the EL/L-8222. The RWR in turn is supposed to feed info and even cue the SPJ. We managed that apparently with the MiG-27 upg but the N011M and Tarang and EL/L-8222 combo was not working optimally. Tarang itself had issues - the drooping nose of the Sukhoi and canards mask several approach vectors. So we had to keep changing layouts, finally a few years back DARE revealed they had put two extra antenna (as versus Tarang standard 4) to get a 6 channel RWR. So four of those channels would go to a switching filter and system which would combine the signals and make sure there was optimal coverage. That is "Eagle Eye" which BEL says went into production. CEMILAC (2014): "Six antennae configur tions of R118 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) system have been certified and cleared with Eagle Eye Interface Unit for installation and flight trials on SU-30".
Meanwhile DARE has also developed a digital receiver for their RWR programs and is working on a digital R118 (http://i.imgur.com/99R4ULc.jpg) - the importance of this is, that it should allow the detection of "exotic radars" like LPI ones.
In the meantime, DARE started displaying Su-30 models with SAP-518 lookalikes (SAP 518 means coverage from 5-18 bands) and HAL mentioned at Aero India, they were solving the issue with Russia. Now when the ground vibration trials for the Su-30 were done by HAL for the Brahmos, HAL revealed that the SAP-518 was on it. (http://www.oneindia.com/india/hal-condu ... 50389.html) See the reference to the ECM pod.
IMHO, given the issues with EL/L-8222, this is the de facto standard pod now for us.

All these integration hassles were in part the reason for the MMRCA. Add the serviceability hassles (Russian spares delay, engine issues) and IAF thought the Rafale would be an easy drop in.
On the plus side, most of these issues are now addressed or in the process of redress. Parrikar has set a target of 70% serviceability by the year end. The jamming pod is being addressed above. The RWR ditto. N011M radar went through its final trials and was fixed recently.
Final Bars actually cleared tests in 2012.

Image
Image
Image


Where are we today?
1. SAP-518 has been confirmed as in my post above, HBJ is in development.
2. R118 has been fitted out to the fleet
3. DR118 is in trials
4. We now have Astra to be fitted out on the Su-30 as well as ASRAAM
5. By 2017, we had achieved 65-68% serviceability and high serviceability in the Gagan Shakti surge. More needs to be done.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VKumar and 41 guests