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: 19145
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.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 11 Mar 2020 02:32

maitya wrote: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.


No, only one quote exists and that's from the Livefist report above. The CAG hasn't gone into the Su-30 details beyond the license production issue at HAL. There was a PAC report in 2000.

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


Yes, now we have the R-118 and soon (hopefully, its been 4 years now, the DR-118).

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


Its widely used across multiple AF and the quote by HVT above implies, that only when its used along with the SAP-14 there are envelope limitations, and obviously when there are very heavy loadouts (e.g. 2T of bombs + 6 AAMs + Brahmos).

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.


I haven't found anything yet on the HBJ pod, bar the fact DRDO expected it as a full project around 2016. If you have a link it would be great. Its likely based off of what we did for the D-29 but with significantly higher ERP to account for the greater RCS of the Su-30 with its loadout.

Plus if we get an all-digital Dhruti RWR solution on Su-30MKI implemented, then that with HBJ would be an enviable ECM combo.


Agreed. The aim is to get 100 Su-30s upgraded in the first phase of the upgrade.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 11 Mar 2020 02:45

In fact, even the Russian Su-27 SM3 were upgraded and can carry the SAP-518
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ussian-mod

Outwardly, the SM3 version differs from the baseline Su-27 in having an additional radio antenna behind the canopy. On its wingtips it can carry the SAP-518 ECM containers belonging to the Khibiny family. Meanwhile, up to 80 percent of the mission equipment has been changed. Four color MFDs replace 13 dial instruments in the cockpit. Technology insertions into the N-001V radar and SUV-27 fire control system enable employment of the RVV-SD medium-range air-to-air missile. Coupled with a secure datalink for protected information exchange with a command post and aircraft in a group, this increases the aircraft efficiency against aerial targets by two to three times.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4435
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 11 Mar 2020 03:02

Achievements-DARE
...

RWR system got evolved from the 1st generation Dawn, to the 2nd generation Tranquil in 1994, followed by the 3rd generation TARANG in 2003, the 4th generation R118 in 2010, the 6 Antenna R118 in 2012, the RWR-ESM in 2014 and the Digital RWR DR118 in 2016.

...

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 11 Mar 2020 03:11

The program was "officially" launched in 2016, its still in development. As of late March 2019, ground tests were underway.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 11 Mar 2020 03:29

REP - includes jammers + ESM

Modifications:
- R & D "Proran" - development of a complex of electronic intelligence;

- research / development work "Regatta" - development of a complex of active jamming;

- ROC "Khibiny" - a complex of electronic intelligence (ROC "Proran") combined with a complex of deliveries of active interference ("ROC" Regatta);

- the Khibiny-10V / L-175V / L-175VE complex - the REP complex for T-10V / Su-34 aircraft.

- the Khibiny complex / KS-418E - the REP complex project for the Su-24MK / Su-24MK2 export aircraft; the development of the complex is apparently not completed.

- REP complex "Khibiny-M10" / "Khibiny-M6"

- complex REP "Khibiny-60"

- REP complex "Khibiny-M" L-265 / L-265M10 - REP complex of the Su-35S aircraft with containers at the wingtips.

- EW complex "Khibiny-U" - an improved version of the complex. In August 2013, at the MAKS-2013 air show, KNIRTI and the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a contract for the development of design and experimental work on the creation and testing of the Khibiny-U electronic warfare complex for front-line aircraft. As part of the ROC, the complex will be deployed on a Su-30SM aircraft.

- Tarantul complex - development of the Khibiny complex developed by KNIRTI.


Now, the L-175VE pods weighs 300 Kg each. You can see it here with an equivalent to the SAP-14 as well.
http://library.voenmeh.ru/jirbis2/files ... age003.jpg

The new small Khibiny-M weighs 450 kg overall.
http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... -2017.html

Meanwhile regarding the different Russian ECM kit. SAP-518 is the active jamming component of Khibiny, i.e. it is basically part of Khibiny-U.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 11 Mar 2020 03:34

srai wrote:Achievements-DARE
...

RWR system got evolved from the 1st generation Dawn, to the 2nd generation Tranquil in 1994, followed by the 3rd generation TARANG in 2003, the 4th generation R118 in 2010, the 6 Antenna R118 in 2012, the RWR-ESM in 2014 and the Digital RWR DR118 in 2016.

...

Useful info. But does this mean that in-service MKI's will be flying with either Tarang, 4-channel R118 or 6-channel R118 depending on when exactly a particular aircraft was manufactured?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 11 Mar 2020 04:49

Su30 MKIs with earlier RWRs were upgraded to 6C R118.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qIcDyA3Z4Tc/ ... BRWR-3.jpg

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 11 Mar 2020 05:27

Thanks Karan. I had a question about missile launch warnings in RWR's and how they work. If I'm not mistaken, in addition to warning about hostile radars in painting you in search mode (nails), and radar locks (spikes), the RWR also warns about actual missile launches. How does it do this? Is it able to detect the missile guidance commands emitted from the radar on the launching aircraft?

I understand that the advantage of TWS mode is that you can engage a target without its RWR warning them of a lock. But can it still detect an actual missile launch? Or does it have to wait till the missile goes active itself in the terminal stage to detect it. Because in that case, a SARH missile launched in TWS mode will cause no warnings whatsoever by the target's RWR right up until it hits.

Sorry, have a lot of confusion in my mind regarding this.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4435
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 11 Mar 2020 07:11

It would need to differentiate between different types of radar pings/locks to identify threat source, warn appropriately and know when to deploy countermeasures. Typical MR AAM radar has a 15km range.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 11 Mar 2020 17:13

nachiket wrote:Thanks Karan. I had a question about missile launch warnings in RWR's and how they work. If I'm not mistaken, in addition to warning about hostile radars in painting you in search mode (nails), and radar locks (spikes), the RWR also warns about actual missile launches. How does it do this? Is it able to detect the missile guidance commands emitted from the radar on the launching aircraft?


Well if the RWR is wideband, and it covers 1-2 GHz, many missile datalinks are in L band, then it can provide an alert if a new continuous wave pops up on your RWR. That would be your missile datalink going active.


I understand that the advantage of TWS mode is that you can engage a target without its RWR warning them of a lock. But can it still detect an actual missile launch? Or does it have to wait till the missile goes active itself in the terminal stage to detect it. Because in that case, a SARH missile launched in TWS mode will cause no warnings whatsoever by the target's RWR right up until it hits.


See above, some radars may still transition to an intermediate higher grade tracking than normal TWS for ARH missiles too. If the TWS beeps increase, then a savvy pilot would automatically assume he has been painted, turn his ECM to max, see if he is the opponents weapons deployment zone, and try to dodge unless he doesnt have a weapon in the air to control. Anyhow, the smart thing to do is to assume if the opponent has you on TWS, you are up for a missile attack. For SARH, the missiles require a constant lock, a constant tone will start once a lock-on is achieved. Point being there are so many tricks in play. The Turks are using even their L Band AWACs to guide their F16C fired AMRAAM C7s in. Sources note that the F16s are not even turning their radars on.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 12 Mar 2020 07:00

Thanks Karan.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 12 Mar 2020 07:06

Looking at all the SAP-518 talk and all the issues we faced integrating El/M-8222 first and then the SAP-518, I can't help but think that the Russians really screwed the pooch when they designed the original flanker and then the 2-seat Su-30. When you are designing one of the biggest and heaviest fighters in the world, how do you fail to equip it with an internal SPJ? And this was late 70's/early 80's for the Su-27 and 90's for the Su-30.

The result being that while our Mirages have been flying with Remora pods since the 80's, our frontline air-superiority fighter inducted in the 2000's had no real ECM capability till the late 2010's when the SAP-518 was finally operationalized!

I was struck by this sentence in AM Harikumar's article about the Balakot strikes
Four, dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum will play a key role in future conflict.

Um, no, it plays a key role in "current" conflict. Not future. It has been fairly important for quite a while. We shouldn't be learning 20th century lessons in 2019.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 12 Mar 2020 08:00

We need to go back and relook at certain points to understand what went on. The Russians put Bars and R-27ER on their Su-35 and Su-30 MKI. This meant they had first look and fire capability. The Americans chipped away at this with AESA radars and AMRAAM variants. Once the AMRAAMs crossed the ER range advantage, the ERs were no longer the long sticks they once were. The in-betweens were the R-77s but since they had so-so kinematic capability, the Russians let them remain for exports. Now, they are adding R-77-1s and active R-27s to their inventory.

But till the US introduced all this, packs of Flankers still had parity in many respects. An ER would be approaching you even as your AMRAAM was yet to go active and was still on MCG, so all was well. So why exactly would you need SPJs when your radar could guide missiles in to the maximum range of the missile.

Then it became clear it would be a problem. So they re-focused on the Khibiny program, which was anyhow in progress. See my post above. Today, Khibiny variants equip the Su-34, the Su-35, Su-27 SM3, Su-30 MKK variants, Su-30 MKI variants.

Our issue with SAP-518 integration is because we chose to put an inhouse RWR along with the Russian pod. If we had gone "all Russian" we would not have faced this issue. Remember SAP-518 is the active EW component which works with the passive RWR/ESM.

We chose to go this path, because despite all the flack IAF gets for being an "imported air force", they realized going forward being dependent on the Russians or anyone else would limit our options. So we chose the more complicated path and have faced more complex issues. Our local industry should have been tapped to fix the SPJ + RWR without bothering about IP/used reverse engineering etc. Only now, with D-29 are we deploying a desi SPJ + RWR on a Russian plane.

The SAP-518 consists of an AESA jammer + an ESM system. So its fully possible that despite its issues with the Indian RWR, it can operate on its own without requiring the RWR to activate it, or cue it. The RWR just serves as a pilot alerting device.

Its not ideal but it should work and that is the reason why the IAF is not panicking. That, and what's on the Su-30.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 13 Mar 2020 05:17

Karan M wrote:We need to go back and relook at certain points to understand what went on. The Russians put Bars and R-27ER on their Su-35 and Su-30 MKI. This meant they had first look and fire capability. The Americans chipped away at this with AESA radars and AMRAAM variants. Once the AMRAAMs crossed the ER range advantage, the ERs were no longer the long sticks they once were. The in-betweens were the R-77s but since they had so-so kinematic capability, the Russians let them remain for exports. Now, they are adding R-77-1s and active R-27s to their inventory.

But till the US introduced all this, packs of Flankers still had parity in many respects. An ER would be approaching you even as your AMRAAM was yet to go active and was still on MCG, so all was well. So why exactly would you need SPJs when your radar could guide missiles in to the maximum range of the missile.

I'm not sure the ER's range advantage precludes the utility of a SPJ. Especially since reducing the distance at which the enemy radar can lock onto you (in a head -on engagement with SPJ active) would still be useful. If the opposing aircraft is jamming, you might not be able to get a firing solution at the max range of the ER. It is only logical that you need the same capability on your side. The F-15C got the TEWS in the mid-80's. Even the A/B variants in the 70's had the original ALQ-135 system.

Secondly, the Russians weren't only faced with AIM-120A/B armed F-15's. They also had to contend with AIM-54 armed Tomcats.

Also we have only considered airborne adversaries here. The SPJ would also be useful against SAM radars as well right? The Russians definitely knew this. They had been playing cat and mouse with F-4's and F-105 Wild Weasels trying to jam their SA-2's since the Vietnam era.

Plus this is besides the point I was trying to make somewhat. We inducted the aircraft in the 2000's when the AIM-120C5 was already available and after Kargil, everyone knew the pakis would get it eventually. If the original Su-30 had an internal SPJ, we wouldn't have been in the soup we found ourselves in eventually. AT least it would have given us something to work with till we got the EL/M-8222 or the SAP-518 or something else integrated on it.

Recently I saw a post where someone was wondering how we could fly our frontline aircraft with no MAWS in this day and age. My immediate thought was that we had been flying it with no operational jammer of any kind till very recently. A far bigger problem than the MAWS which is less useful IMHO.

Then it became clear it would be a problem. So they re-focused on the Khibiny program, which was anyhow in progress. See my post above. Today, Khibiny variants equip the Su-34, the Su-35, Su-27 SM3, Su-30 MKK variants, Su-30 MKI variants.

Is the SAP-518 a derivative of the Khibiny program? I haven't seen any Khibiny variant on the MKI (except the 518 itself if it is a part of that).

Our issue with SAP-518 integration is because we chose to put an in house RWR along with the Russian pod. If we had gone "all Russian" we would not have faced this issue. Remember SAP-518 is the active EW component which works with the passive RWR/ESM.

We chose to go this path, because despite all the flack IAF gets for being an "imported air force", they realized going forward being dependent on the Russians or anyone else would limit our options. So we chose the more complicated path and have faced more complex issues. Our local industry should have been tapped to fix the SPJ + RWR without bothering about IP/used reverse engineering etc. Only now, with D-29 are we deploying a desi SPJ + RWR on a Russian plane.

I doubt it was because of the indigenous factor by itself. I have a feeling they simply weren't satisfied with the RWR in the original Su-27 (which is what we must have had on our initial 18 Su-30K's) as well. It was pretty much the same system as in our Mig-29's. If you look at pictures of the older Su-27/Mig-29 cockpits you can see the RWR "display" quite clearly. There is no screen. It is just an outline of the fighter surrounded by different colored lights which will light up and roughly indicate the azimuth of the hostile radar. Western aircraft (of that period, including our M2k's if I'm not mistaken) have a more sophisticated system with a dedicated screen which can provide more info about the threat (airborne/surface, type of aircraft etc.).

The IAF probably needed better than what the Russians had available.

The SAP-518 consists of an AESA jammer + an ESM system. So its fully possible that despite its issues with the Indian RWR, it can operate on its own without requiring the RWR to activate it, or cue it. The RWR just serves as a pilot alerting device.

Its not ideal but it should work and that is the reason why the IAF is not panicking. That, and what's on the Su-30.

I agree that it probably won't need the RWR. The twin pods are necessary because one is a dedicated receiver and the other the emitter. So the 518 basically has a forward facing RWR built into it sort of, but without the pilot alert system as you said. Only problem is you lose 2 HP's and are saddled with fairly heavy payloads on the wingtips which cannot be jettisoned (unless the pilot wishes to pay the bill from his pocket :P ).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2020 06:23

nachiket wrote:I'm not sure the ER's range advantage precludes the utility of a SPJ. Especially since reducing the distance at which the enemy radar can lock onto you (in a head -on engagement with SPJ active) would still be useful. If the opposing aircraft is jamming, you might not be able to get a firing solution at the max range of the ER. It is only logical that you need the same capability on your side. The F-15C got the TEWS in the mid-80's. Even the A/B variants in the 70's had the original ALQ-135 system.


That is particularly valid today. Originally, the Russian's radar + ER + their basic SPJ was sufficient to combat the opponent. The US et al focused mostly on multi-role radars vs raw range performance. The F-14 was an outlier. The E3 AWACS would perform long range acquisition, IFF etc. The F15 etc hence didnt need extreme range as the F14 did, for fleet AD vs massed bomber attacks which had to be taken out before the launched missiles. The N001 + ER combo was designed to beat the F-15C when it came out and it had a basic SPJ as well. The Russians being well, Russians, over-engineered the N001 + R27ER combo, for its era. But they were delayed, the Su-27 came out when there were many F-15 already in play and they had the benefit of setting what they needed to do. Then the FSU collapsed, and only Indian funding for the Bars kept them competitive, till the US AESA, MMIC, EW game pulled the latter ahead. The Irbis and Byelka are their attempt to get back into the game the US has dominated for the last decade, and regain the Bars initiative. The Russians despite all their problems, once Putin stabilized things, have come back as serious players. The SAP-518+ SAP14 when deployed may limit the envelope as the large pods may do so for the Growler, but they are very powerful jammers and played a significant role in the US move towards IRST.

Secondly, the Russians weren't only faced with AIM-120A/B armed F-15's. They also had to contend with AIM-54 armed Tomcats.


The AIM-54 was a fleet defense weapon. A niche system on the lines of the MiG-31, Zaslon + R33/37 combination.

Also we have only considered airborne adversaries here. The SPJ would also be useful against SAM radars as well right? The Russians definitely knew this. They had been playing cat and mouse with F-4's and F-105 Wild Weasels trying to jam their SA-2's since the Vietnam era.


SPJs are usually directed against systems in the X Band + GHz range, which are usually airborne. Bigger systems correlate to larger antenna, power draw on the jammers hence for L/S etc bands you use dedicated aircraft.

Plus this is besides the point I was trying to make somewhat. We inducted the aircraft in the 2000's when the AIM-120C5 was already available and after Kargil, everyone knew the pakis would get it eventually. If the original Su-30 had an internal SPJ, we wouldn't have been in the soup we found ourselves in eventually. AT least it would have given us something to work with till we got the EL/M-8222 or the SAP-518 or something else integrated on it.


The Russians were working on a system, which was the Khibiny program. The IAF went for a domestic RWR and tried to add an Israeli SPJ which didnt work out. Nor were they willing to open up Bars and Tarang to the Israelis (obviously). Or replace the Tarang with Pastel later on.

The Russians tend to play their cards close to the chest at times, but when the Su-30 was developed, it does seem the IAF chose to go with an international mix rather than wait for the Russian answer & DARE also overestimated what it could do (Tarang on Su-30 was sub-optimal).

Recently I saw a post where someone was wondering how we could fly our frontline aircraft with no MAWS in this day and age. My immediate thought was that we had been flying it with no operational jammer of any kind till very recently. A far bigger problem than the MAWS which is less useful IMHO.


As mentioned above, this is incorrect. We do have operational jammers, i.e. the SAP-518. They have certain limitations but no kit is perfect and second, the Su-30 MKI Bars + missile combination is sufficient to face off against less powerful aircraft w/SPJs. The issue really arises with todays widespread proliferation of HPR such as AESAs + SPJ which, when Bars is operating alone without SPJ, can take the range advantage.

Is the SAP-518 a derivative of the Khibiny program? I haven't seen any Khibiny variant on the MKI (except the 518 itself if it is a part of that).


The SAP-518 is the active jammer component of the Khibiny program.

I doubt it was because of the indigenous factor by itself. I have a feeling they simply weren't satisfied with the RWR in the original Su-27 (which is what we must have had on our initial 18 Su-30K's) as well. It was pretty much the same system as in our Mig-29's. If you look at pictures of the older Su-27/Mig-29 cockpits you can see the RWR "display" quite clearly. There is no screen. It is just an outline of the fighter surrounded by different colored lights which will light up and roughly indicate the azimuth of the hostile radar. Western aircraft (of that period, including our M2k's if I'm not mistaken) have a more sophisticated system with a dedicated screen which can provide more info about the threat (airborne/surface, type of aircraft etc.).


Russian RWRs moved from Sirena (basic aircraft outline with limited functions) to Beryoza (which came in the aircraft outline layout plus displayed on the HUD) and was also capable against pulse doppler systems (e.g. US AWG series) and was fielded on the Su-27SK as well, and then the Pastel RWR series, of which the L-150 has a digital set-up. The Beryoza was fairly capable, and effectively used by the Iraqis who demanded a similar level of performance from the French RWRs. The Pastel was developed in the 1980s in parallel with the deployment of the advanced Beryozas and the display was on the MFDs.

This is the L-150.
Link

How it can integrate into the color MFD - copy paste the below URL into the address bar.

Code: Select all

https://defense-arab.com/vb/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIy9KW4x.png&hash=b49aa1b814fd11e388f137cab72fc224


It also serves as the cueing system for up to 6x Kh-31Ps.

The IAF probably needed better than what the Russians had available.


Be as it may, the choice of an Indian RWR locked them out of the Russian answer. The real issue was the amount of time the IAF took to resolve this.

I agree that it probably won't need the RWR. The twin pods are necessary because one is a dedicated receiver and the other the emitter. So the 518 basically has a forward facing RWR built into it sort of, but without the pilot alert system as you said. Only problem is you lose 2 HP's and are saddled with fairly heavy payloads on the wingtips which cannot be jettisoned (unless the pilot wishes to pay the bill from his pocket :P ).


You wouldn't wish to jettison those payloads because they are worth their weight in gold if you play the game the Russian way. Without the Tarang automatically cueing the SPJ, the WSO would have to decide the modes and deploy, based on what the pod is telling him, and if he can do that well, the SAP-518 is a beast.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 13 Mar 2020 06:54

Karan M wrote: Originally, the Russian's radar + ER + their basic SPJ was sufficient to combat the opponent. The US et al focused mostly on multi-role radars vs raw range performance. The F-14 was an outlier. The E3 AWACS would perform long range acquisition, IFF etc. The F15 etc hence didnt need extreme range as the F14 did, for fleet AD vs massed bomber attacks which had to be taken out before the launched missiles. The N001 + ER combo was designed to beat the F-15C when it came out and it had a basic SPJ as well. The Russians being well, Russians, over-engineered the N001 + R27ER combo, for its era. But they were delayed, the Su-27 came out when there were many F-15 already in play and they had the benefit of setting what they needed to do. Then the FSU collapsed, and only Indian funding for the Bars kept them competitive, till the US AESA, MMIC, EW game pulled the latter ahead. The Irbis and Byelka are their attempt to get back into the game the US has dominated for the last decade, and regain the Bars initiative. The Russians despite all their problems, once Putin stabilized things, have come back as serious players. The SAP-518+ SAP14 when deployed may limit the envelope as the large pods may do so for the Growler, but they are very powerful jammers and played a significant role in the US move towards IRST.


The F-15 and its avionics were designed with long range and performance in mind. What it wasn't designed for was a specific long range bomber threat, like the F-14. It is/was an OCA platform. For the target sets, and the theater its mission systems were designed for they represented the best in class that these aircraft could get at the time. Similarly, this was (and continuous to be) constantly improved over the years to keep up with the threat and the F-15C's main mission - OCA. The first F-15C unit equipped with an AESA was stood up in 2000, and my the mid-2000's Boeing and its radar supplier team was already demonstrating improved capability, greater power, electronic-attack modes using the radar and radar as a communication/DL array. The capability was improved further with the RMP program which upgraded to next generation T/R modules and other electronics and modernized the ECS to further increase range, bandwidth, and other performance. This again gets another boost with the ADCP-II upgrade which exponentially increases the computing power.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2020 07:01

The point I was making was simple. The F-15 did not have a true long range performance like that of the F-14 because its radar wasn't as powerful. The long range and performance you note was equivalent at best to what the Russians did with the N001, N011, Zhuk-MS (the primogenitor of the PRC radars) N011M etc and actually the N011M was ahead of several western radars of its time and equivalent to first gen AESAs. This power aperture performance of the larger Russian radars, western 1st Gen AESAs vs smaller fighters, meant SPJs were not that critical. Even when jammed, a Su-27 with Bars or F-15 w/AESA can manage to face off and deploy its AAMs vs a F-16 class platform. F-15Cs w/late mark AN/APG-63 struggled against Bisons with SPJs. That wouldn't be necessarily true of today's F-15s with far more powerful radars.

The true advantage came with the 2nd gen AESAs which pulled ahead of the Russian systems till the Irbis-E was developed and the widespread deployment of powerful SPJs, which combine high ERP plus DRFM. That has reversed the whole game. A Bars equipped Su-30 or even a 1st gen AESA equipped F15 can't remain sanguine against a Rafale with Spectra or EF with AESA + EW. In fact, even a 2nd gen AESA fighter which faces off against a fighter with a lower performance AESA set may still be at parity at weapons deployment ranges due to the latter fielding powerful ECM, and hence AEW&CS become more and more essential. Case in point, a F-15 w/2nd gen AESA + EW vs Rafale + AESA and EW. Both sides have enough radar performance to launch AAMs at similar ranges, so where is the acquisition advantage to play the outflanking game then. You need AWACS.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 13 Mar 2020 07:11

The F-15C was as good or better than the F-14 in terms of long range engagement of its targets (which were fighters) and its intended roles. As far as US cos Russian radars there is no objective comparison of these Radars to first gen US AESAs which were derived from the F-22 raptor program which had sensors in the air in the 1990s. Since then they have received significant upgrades and the AN/APG-82 is in some ways the longest range radar the US has ever put on a fighter that leverages decades of work on the ATF and other programs and of course constant production and iterative improvement on a production line they has been cranking out AESA radars for 20 years. Of course since then the needs from AESAs have evolved and survivability and the ability to manipulate it for other missions takes emphasis but as far as old school range is concerns the F-15s radar has always been pushing the technology for its time. It has been operating with an AESA for nearly 2 decades now.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2020 07:25

brar_w wrote:The F-15C was as good or better than the F-14 in terms of long range engagement of its targets (which were fighters)


Sorry, completely disagree. The data and numbers are against it. AWG-9/APG-71 would blow away any F-15 equivalent bar the newer ones with AESAs. Forget internet arguments. The Iranians had access to both aircraft and their roadmaps and went for the F-14 in part because of what it offered.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former- ... -the-f-15/

"The AWG-9 allowed us to engage at ranges the F-15 crews could only dream of".

and its intended roles. As far as US cos Russian radars there is no objective comparison of these Radars to first gen US AESAs which were derived from the F-22 raptor program which had sensors in the air in the 1990s. Since then they have received significant upgrades and the AN/APG-82 is in some ways the longest range radar the US has ever put on a fighter that leverages decades of work on the ATF and other programs and of course constant production and iterative improvement on a production line they has been cranking out AESA radars for 20 years.


Kopp put out a lot of data on modeling which in hindsight has been bang on. The first gen US AESAs vs late model Russian PESAs had significant commonalities. He pulled down a few webpages after getting heat from his Gov., but the parametric estimates showed that Bars plus Bars w/TWT upgrades and Irbis-E early models were firmly in the class of initial AESAs and the Irbis-E pulled ahead of the Hornet E/F. Even leaving him aside, Barrie had a lot of range estimates which AvLeak was putting out back in the day, before the PRC threat got all things shut down. They too pretty much corroborated the above arguments. At the end of the day, power matters. Which is why the Russians also field those beastly jammers and the US moved towards NGJ.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 13 Mar 2020 07:30

Karan M wrote:Sorry, completely disagree. The data and numbers are against it. AWG-9/APG-71 would blow away any F-15 equivalent bar the newer ones with AESAs. Forget internet arguments. The Iranians had access to both aircraft and their roadmaps and went for the F-14 in part because of what it offered.


The data does not account for the fact that the AWG-9 is designed for a different target set and a different mission all together. Try to find a WEST video from 3-4 years ago of a USN F-14 pilot describing the difference and mock combat in a large force deployment against the F-15. To sum up, the F-15C was optimized for OCA and BVR combat against fighters over the European theater. Everything on it was optimized for that mission and as long as you compare the two for that role, everything on it was superior. Iranian choice was based on what suited their needs. The F-15 was essentially designed for one theater and one mission. They had other demands which made the F-14 a more competitive choice and perhaps even a better one.

In fact, even a 2nd gen AESA fighter which faces off against a fighter with a lower performance AESA set may still be at parity at weapons deployment ranges due to the latter fielding powerful ECM, and hence AEW&CS become more and more essential.


Well of course if someone just addresses one aspect of their aircraft and completely neglects all others. But most wouldn't be foolish to do that so in addition to having a very powerful radar, F-15 operators would also be equipped with powerful integrated self-protection EW/EA suites. And they are.

Both sides have enough radar performance to launch AAMs at similar ranges, so where is the acquisition advantage to play the outflanking game then. You need AWACS.


Yes for a narrowly focused mission or a blue on red engagement. But that is not the only reason why these aircraft are equipped with very powerful radars whose performance is constantly being improved. They are also used for the Cruise Missile Defense and DCA missions in which the radar performance gains matter.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2020 07:36

brar_w wrote:The data does not account for the fact that the AWG-9 is designed for a different target set and a different mission all together. Try to find a WEST video from 3-4 years ago of a USN F-14 pilot describing the difference and mock combat in a large force deployment against the F-15. To sum up, the F-15C was optimized for OCA and BVR combat against fighters over the European theater. Everything on it was optimized for that mission and as long as you compare the two for that role, everything on it was superior. Iranian choice was based on what suited their needs. The F-15 was essentially designed for one theater and one mission. They had other demands which made the F-14 a more competitive choice and perhaps even a better one.


My simple point is the AWG-9/APG-71 far outranged anything the F-15 had till the advent of AESAs, fighter, bomber whatever. The radar could detect far ahead, and was way more powerful. That has ECM capability by itself. The data backs that out.

Well of course if someone just addresses one aspect of their aircraft and completely neglects all others. But most wouldn't be foolish to do that so in addition to having a very powerful radar, F-15 operators would also be equipped with powerful integrated self-protection EW/EA suites. And they are.Yes for a narrowly focused mission or a blue on red engagement. But that is not the only reason why these aircraft are equipped with very powerful radars whose performance is constantly being improved. They are also used for the Cruise Missile Defense and DCA missions in which the radar performance gains matter.


You are missing the point I was making entirely, so I wont repeat myself.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 13 Mar 2020 07:56

I understand your point however I am trying to draw the distinction between data on paper and actual performance when performing a mission. I have seen analysis by Kopp and others and none included any objectively verifiable data sources based on released information. If Kopp is comparing a Flanker radar to a Rhino radar then that isn't even a fair comparison. The Rhino is not a OCA/DCA platform of choice and none of that requirement was put on it. It was on the F-22/35 and F-15 RMP's and of course the Flanker. The F-15 AESA's have gone through 3 iterations and upgrade cycles and they started with inserting the ATF technology (ahead of the F-22A) and have since kept on improving it across the mission set. The F-15 equipped with AESA was also the first fighter aircraft in the world to demonstrate electronic attack jamming using its radars (ahead of the F-35). This is a capability that a lot has been invested in. Anyhow, If I find the WEST video I'll post here. It covers, in some detail, the BVR combat performance of the two platforms against the fighter threat.

As far as the jammers you compared, they are different systems. The Next Generation Jammer is not an ECM system to protect fighters. It is a stand-off offensive jammer system for SEAD/DEAD and for employing ARM's against surface to air missile systems and their radars and other components. US fighters are equipped with ECM suites for air-combat and for G2A threats. The Prowler had a fringe escort mission against air to air threats, the Growler is no longer tasked with that mission. Even against surface to air threats, the escort mission on it is slowly going away and will probably go away all together with the NGJ. It basically has one mission, to either make sure the SAM radars don't turn on, or if they turn on they are degraded or targeted. As far as protection against Air to Air or Air to Ground threats in a self-defense capacity, it is the RCS optimization and the self-protection suites that are tasked with that role and not an escort platform.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2020 08:12

brar_w wrote:I understand your point however I am trying to draw the distinction between data on paper and actual performance when performing a mission. I have seen analysis by Kopp and others and none included any objectively verifiable data sources based on released information. If Kopp is comparing a Flanker radar to a Rhino radar then that isn't even a fair comparison. The Rhino is not a OCA/DCA platform of choice and none of that requirement was put on it. It was on the F-22/35 and F-15 RMP's. The F-15 AESA's have gone through 3 iterations and upgrade cycles and they started with inserting the ATF technology (ahead of the F-22A) and have since kept on improving it across the mission set. The F-15 equipped with AESA was also the first fighter aircraft in the world to demonstrate electronic attack jamming using its radars (ahead of the F-35). This is a capability that a lot has been invested in. Anyhow, If I find the WEST video I'll post here. It covers, in some detail, the BVR combat performance of the two platforms against the fighter threat.


I am fairly certain if he had started putting up the sources he was using, he would be in deeper trouble than he landed in later. He literally had to shut down his site as it was. About Rhino, for the USN it is their OCA/DCA and they need everything out of it. Kopp compared different classes of radars in a pretty comprehensive effort to mark out how the Russians within the constraints of their system (passive TWT based systems vs AESAs) were still fairly competitive in the BVR game. I am not saying the F-15 has not been upgraded. That's not my point. My point was simpler - that the US moved to HPR AESAs, and the Russians to HPR PESAs and as such they were able to address the ECM game which was equalizing smaller and bigger platforms, even without having to add ECM which was more of an icing on the cake and just re-affirmed the overmatch. That's the advantage.

That of course is no longer the case as the smaller platforms also have AESA and even higher power ECM. That is the reality today. A F-15 with a much larger nosed AESA radar can no longer count on merely that radar alone overwhelming a smaller opponent with a smaller radar and ECM, because that smaller radar is also AESA, and compensates for whatever performance shortfall with a smaller signature platform and also a powerful ECM system. So it too needs an ECM system! Which is what the original point about Bars + Su-30 was which you sidetracked into a discussion about the F-15 etc.

Next, as regards the BVR performance, videos apart, the basic thing is till the F-14 became long in the tooth and fell by the wayside, its BVR performance, radar wise was something no F-15 of that era could match. The APG-71 even took the APG-70s digital enhancements and ported that back to the AWG-9. If the US had added the same missile, and other avionics improvements it would have remained apace, but the advent of digital PESAs/ AESAs ensure that even the AWG-71 is now obsolete. But at its peak, it could have easily handled a smaller fighter with jamming, hence the Iraqis kept scrambling looking for answers till the French gave them some answers.

As far as the jammers you compared, they are different systems. The Next Generation Jammer is not an ECM system to protect fighters. It is a stand-off offensive jammer system for SEAD/DEAD and for employing ARM's against surface to air missile systems and their radars and other components. US fighters are equipped with ECM suites for air-combat and for G2A threats. The Prowler had a fringe escort mission against air to air threats, the Growler is no longer tasked with that mission. Even against surface to air threats, the escort mission on it is slowly going away and will probably go away all together with the NGJ.


Of course I know its not meant for fighters. Again, you are getting caught up in the woods for the trees re: point I am making. The point I am making is as higher power radars proliferate, so are jammers. The NGJ will in turn force the Russians to reevaluate (if they havent already) what they plan for the S-500 or even S-600. And similarly, the advent of advanced technology, e.g. GaN, advanced compute, software algorithms has ensured that even compact SAM systems can now provide power ratings or performance that earlier huge systems would have to, ensuring the cat and mouse game continues. That is my point. Not whether NGJ is directed towards x threat or y.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 13 Mar 2020 08:24

Karan M wrote:
I am fairly certain if he had started putting up the sources he was using, he would be in deeper trouble than he landed in later.


So just as I said, no sources. How is one to objectively use the data and verify whether it is correct and whether the supporting analysis is backed up by data? I don't think he ever claimed to have used classified or even privileged data in his analysis and despite the fact that for him to obtain it would be questionable at best.

Karan M wrote:About Rhino, for the USN it is their OCA/DCA and they need everything out of it.


This is not true and most folks familiar with NAVAIR will vouch for it. The USN does not have an OCA mission and any defensive carrier missions the USN is now tasked with are against a marginal threat which is quite inferior and which is dealt more via its integrated fire control capability than just an aerial platform. The F-18E/F replaced the F-14 in name only. In reality the mission was divested because the threat didn't justify such a capability be maintained. Had the threat not gone away, the platform chosen for this mission would have been the Naval ATF which had a much lower RCS, much larger radar, and much better overall performance including more 5th generation like power and thermal management. The F-18E/F is essentially designed around the strike-mission and its radar or any other parameters aren't designed with cutting edge OCA/DCA in mind. If it were, it would be carrying a much larger radar, more fuel and would practically have ruled out the Hornet platform for its initial design. Just because it does those missions (and it will do it well enough with the AIM-120 D and JATM) doesn't mean that it is optimized for it and this encompasses various other performance metrics beyond just its sensor suite. This was actually one of Kopp's argument as he romanticized about F-22's and EF-111's for the Australian Air Force (not accounting for technical, financial and political challenges). It is like saying that just because the USAF Air National Guard will be using a few F-16 squadrons for Cruise Missile Defense mission, it must mean the APG-83 radar is optimized for it (which it is not relative to the mission). The APG-79 is a capable radar but it is designed around the user requirements and the missions it performs when balanced with other platform choice made by its operators. The size of the radar, power and thermal performance of the platform were all balanced within a very conservative margin to keep costs low and allow affordable recapitalization of the naval strike fighter fleet. The USN saw what it would cost to field a proper OCA/DCA platform (N-ATF) and walked away from the mission happily trading it for AEA as far roles and responsibilities of the joint forces were concerned.

This is why when the CENTCOM wants OCA/DCA platforms in its AOR it first asks for F-15's, F-22's or F-35's and why some of these are still there. They don't call the US Navy and ask for Super Hornets with the few dirt units that exist for the SH and Growler. The APG-77/81, and 63(V)3 and -82 are much larger, with more power, more cooling and more optimized for long range performance to support OCA/DCA and the various other aspects (like electronic attack modes). They are designed like that due to the missions their host aircraft are expected to perform, or because they are part of highly integrated targeting suite which is generating a common operating picture for a larger strike force (like the F-22 and F-35 are expected to do). The APG-79 or F-16 AESA's or more precisely the F-18E/F and F-16 block 60/70 are not optimized specifically for that end of the mission even though the radars are quite capable. This goes for most peer platforms to it. Put a Rafale on a USN CVN and it too would be a sub optimal for the role that the F-14 performed. That mission went away after the cold war and based on a re balancing of missions and scope (between USAF and USN and USN Surface forces and Carrier Forces) is simply not coming back. So no, the F-18E/F is a multi-role platform with its requirements not optimized for this specific mission like they were on the F-15 or F-14 for example. It does what it is designed to but an F-15/F-14 comparable it is not. Leave aside the F-22 or F-35.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 14 Mar 2020 02:03

Karan M wrote:That is particularly valid today. Originally, the Russian's radar + ER + their basic SPJ was sufficient to combat the opponent. The US et al focused mostly on multi-role radars vs raw range performance. The F-14 was an outlier. The E3 AWACS would perform long range acquisition, IFF etc. The F15 etc hence didnt need extreme range as the F14 did, for fleet AD vs massed bomber attacks which had to be taken out before the launched missiles. The N001 + ER combo was designed to beat the F-15C when it came out and it had a basic SPJ as well. The Russians being well, Russians, over-engineered the N001 + R27ER combo, for its era.

I did not know that the N001 has an inbuilt SPJ function. Never read about that anywhere. Does the Bars have that as well? I assume it is a basic noise jammer. I thought it was only modern AESA's like the APG-81 which had an "electronic attack" capability.

SPJs are usually directed against systems in the X Band + GHz range, which are usually airborne. Bigger systems correlate to larger antenna, power draw on the jammers hence for L/S etc bands you use dedicated aircraft.

Is this true of the Spectra as well? Because we haven't selected any external jamming pod for the Rafale. So it wouldn't be able to perform a SEAD mission without another aircraft accompanying with an escort jammer, which we don't really have except for the SAP-14--SAP-518 combo on the Su-30 to an extent.

As mentioned above, this is incorrect. We do have operational jammers, i.e. the SAP-518. They have certain limitations but no kit is perfect and second, the Su-30 MKI Bars + missile combination is sufficient to face off against less powerful aircraft w/SPJs. The issue really arises with todays widespread proliferation of HPR such as AESAs + SPJ which, when Bars is operating alone without SPJ, can take the range advantage.

I meant before the SAP-518 became operational, which fairly recent.

Russian RWRs moved from Sirena (basic aircraft outline with limited functions) to Beryoza (which came in the aircraft outline layout plus displayed on the HUD) and was also capable against pulse doppler systems (e.g. US AWG series) and was fielded on the Su-27SK as well, and then the Pastel RWR series, of which the L-150 has a digital set-up. The Beryoza was fairly capable, and effectively used by the Iraqis who demanded a similar level of performance from the French RWRs. The Pastel was developed in the 1980s in parallel with the deployment of the advanced Beryozas and the display was on the MFDs.

This is the L-150.
Link

How it can integrate into the color MFD - copy paste the below URL into the address bar.

Code: Select all

https://defense-arab.com/vb/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIy9KW4x.png&hash=b49aa1b814fd11e388f137cab72fc224


It also serves as the cueing system for up to 6x Kh-31Ps.

Thanks! Our Su-30K's probably had the Beryoza on them I guess.

You wouldn't wish to jettison those payloads because they are worth their weight in gold if you play the game the Russian way. Without the Tarang automatically cueing the SPJ, the WSO would have to decide the modes and deploy, based on what the pod is telling him, and if he can do that well, the SAP-518 is a beast.

I meant if you close in for a dogfight. During the Feb 27 engagement Avenger 1 closed in to within 30km and might have ended up in visual range if the F-16's had not turned around. At which point the SAP-518's are basically dead weight on the wingtips. They are fairly chunky unlike the Typhoon's similar but smaller (and less powerful I imagine) ESCM wingtip pods for instance.

NachiketM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 28 Dec 2018 03:52

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

Postby NachiketM » 26 Mar 2020 04:22

srai wrote:
tandav wrote:

Any answers on this query?


For more clarity on missile dynamics here's a link where a fighter pilot talks abt the movie scenes involving fighter plane engagement...
https://youtu.be/51uw3drjpFc

NachiketM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 28 Dec 2018 03:52

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

Postby NachiketM » 28 Mar 2020 04:47

This question is for the seniors here;

How does the Home-on-Jammer (HOJ) mode of modern missiles actually work?
Why didn't the our aircraft use it on 27th Feb?
Does Astra come with this mode too?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2020 11:02

brar_w wrote:So just as I said, no sources. How is one to objectively use the data and verify whether it is correct and whether the supporting analysis is backed up by data? I don't think he ever claimed to have used classified or even privileged data in his analysis and despite the fact that for him to obtain it would be questionable at best.


He has put up enough sources and anyone with a basic understanding of the concepts he is talking of would come to the same conclusion and many did, because of which he was forced to go slow. In fact, I am still surprised how he was allowed to get away with it for so long.

Karan M wrote:About Rhino, for the USN it is their OCA/DCA and they need everything out of it.


This is not true and most folks familiar with NAVAIR will vouch for it. The USN does not have an OCA mission and any defensive carrier missions the USN is now tasked with are against a marginal threat which is quite inferior and which is dealt more via its integrated fire control capability than just an aerial platform. The F-18E/F replaced the F-14 in name only.


I am not going to waste my time with a 100,000 word post but lets apply some common sense please. The USN only has the F/A-18 E/F bar its CMs. Whatever mission is asked of them it has to deliver to the best of its ability. I am not going to even bother with the rest of the stuff you have written because there are several errors there, and again, also completely misses the point. Its a joke also to say that its not F-15/14 comparable. Every fighter is comparable to another when it comes down to it. In todays world, F-16s are dangerous enough to be used against Su-30s in specific mission sets. Please read in context.

I am still awaiting some logic on how a 10KW radar on the F-14 AWG-71 would be somehow inferior to a much lower rated F-15 APG-63 with similar backend and processing capability, but instead of addressing that, again, you come back with a 40k word count post which is more of an acronym jumble than a focused answer. That's the whole problem, you take every post even speaking about general concepts as some attack against the great US and then proceed to go on a completely tangential set of replies. After a while, you are going to be left talking to yourself as everyone remotely interested just stops responding. If that's what you want, knock yourself out.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2020 11:14

nachiket wrote:I did not know that the N001 has an inbuilt SPJ function. Never read about that anywhere. Does the Bars have that as well? I assume it is a basic noise jammer. I thought it was only modern AESA's like the APG-81 which had an "electronic attack" capability.


I am referring to the fact the SKs also had a wingtip SPJ not the radars EA capability.

Is this true of the Spectra as well? Because we haven't selected any external jamming pod for the Rafale.


Logically- the ECM is most likely directed towards 1-18 GHz or slightly more. Won't be sure about no external pods for the Rafale. Remember VCAS Nambiar mentioned getting pods w/the Rafale. It also has a towed decoy.

So it wouldn't be able to perform a SEAD mission without another aircraft accompanying with an escort jammer, which we don't really have except for the SAP-14--SAP-518 combo on the Su-30 to an extent.


Like I mentioned - the EW fit we are getting with the Rafale is classified. Also, we have EW capabilities on the IAF fleet beyond the Su-30 as well.

I meant before the SAP-518 became operational, which fairly recent.


SAP-518 became operational by 2014 or even earlier.

Russian RWRs moved from Sirena (basic aircraft outline with limited functions) to Beryoza (which came in the aircraft outline layout plus displayed on the HUD) and was also capable against pulse doppler systems (e.g. US AWG series) and was fielded on the Su-27SK as well, and then the Pastel RWR series, of which the L-150 has a digital set-up. The Beryoza was fairly capable, and effectively used by the Iraqis who demanded a similar level of performance from the French RWRs. The Pastel was developed in the 1980s in parallel with the deployment of the advanced Beryozas and the display was on the MFDs.

This is the L-150.
Link

How it can integrate into the color MFD - copy paste the below URL into the address bar.

Code: Select all

https://defense-arab.com/vb/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIy9KW4x.png&hash=b49aa1b814fd11e388f137cab72fc224


It also serves as the cueing system for up to 6x Kh-31Ps.


Thanks! Our Su-30K's probably had the Beryoza on them I guess.


Pastel, more likely. As our first Su-30 MKIs also had Pastel.

I meant if you close in for a dogfight. During the Feb 27 engagement Avenger 1 closed in to within 30km and might have ended up in visual range if the F-16's had not turned around. At which point the SAP-518's are basically dead weight on the wingtips. They are fairly chunky unlike the Typhoon's similar but smaller (and less powerful I imagine) ESCM wingtip pods for instance.


SAP-518s are still useful because they can deny the opponent his radar's close combat modes. Also, in BVR, the pod is still denying the opponent a BVR lock with high Pk.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2020 11:16

Karan M wrote:He has put up enough sources and anyone with a basic understanding of the concepts he is talking of would come to the same conclusion and many did, because of which he was forced to go slow. In fact, I am still surprised how he was allowed to get away with it for so long.


What sources are you talking about? Specifically when it comes to evaluating the three different iterations of AESA radars the USAF/N have managed to field over the last 20 years these systems have been in production. Again, specific sources that can be easily verified and will stand a peer review. Reality however is that not an iota of official data on either their requirements, or their T&E (objective data) has been published. Nothing that will easily allow anyone to do an objective analysis. Most of the data has been classified and not available to the public or published for research.This for even the basic block 1 variations and speaks nothing of how these systems have been iterated upon over the last 15 or so years. More data is available on the F-16 and F-18 backfit radars but those aren't at the cutting edge of AESA capability anyways as they are designed within smaller margins and with cost in mind.

The USN only has the F/A-18 E/F..Whatever mission is asked of them it has to deliver to the best of its ability.


That is not how this works. Of course when asked to do every platform in a particular service would do what it is asked to do. The USAF operates F-16 by the hundreds. If asked, and when available, a COCOM commander will employ it for whatever mission he/she need it for. That doesn't make that the platform (F-16C) will be optimal for that particular mission. Same is true for the Rhino. The Rhino is a strike fighter. It is a multi-role aircraft so is capable of performing a wide range of missions. That doesn't mean its requirements (that led to its creation) or its performance make it an optimal F-14 replacement.

It does OCA/DCA but it doesn't do it that well. Only reason the US Navy accepts this is because that mission has largely gone away. In fact the OCA is entirely gone while DCA and fleet defense is much lower in demand given the end of the cold war and not something they worried too much over (given F-35 coming online and then FA-XX in the 2030s). Same with its sensors and other requirements. It wasn't designed to be optimized for that mission. To see that "it has to be" as the USN "needs everything out if" is not very accurate. It can't replicate a larger sensor that is optimized for certain missions like those on the F-22 or F-35 or even the larger sensors on the F-15 etc. The F-18E/F is designed around a trade-space just like everything else and OCA/DCA mission-set is not very heavily weighted in that decision because the need to replace the F-14 with a similar platform was just not there. This is reflected in how different the Super Hornet is from the Naval-ATF, a naval aircraft that would have been optimized for the OCA/DCA mission for the USN with the sensor footprint and capability to boot.

There is going to be a substantial difference between an F-15E, or F-15EX with its AESA radar and combat suite, and an F-18 E/F with its AESA radar and combat suite. In BVR across OCA/DCA there will literally be no contest in terms of what a COCOM commander would send out if given a choice. Same when it is pitted with the sensor performance of the F-35/F-22. Those sensors have been designed for higher performance with SwAP provisioned for higher end operating modes particularly as integrated parts of the EW system as a jamming system.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Mar 2020 11:26, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2020 11:26

brar_w wrote:What sources are you talking about? Specifically when it comes to evaluating the three different iterations of AESA radars the USAF/N have managed to field over the last 20 years these systems have been in production. Again, specific sources that can be easily verified and will stand a peer review. Reality however is that not an iota of official data on either their requirements, or their T&E (objective data) has been published. Nothing that will easily allow anyone to do an objective analysis. Most of the data has been classified and not available to the public or published for research.This for even the basic block 1 variations and speaks nothing of how these systems have been iterated upon over the last 15 or so years.


Again, if you are asking for this information, you are asking to be spoonfed. Nobody is going to do that. As I said - go back, see what was written and dig. Anyone with a decent understanding of the concepts as he did would have a very good idea of what capabilities exist. The fact that you think an objective analysis can't be done is all on you. Nobody remotely associated with the subject would agree with you.

The USN only has the F/A-18 E/F..Whatever mission is asked of them it has to deliver to the best of its ability.


1. That is not how this works. 2. Of course when asked to do every platform in a particular service would do what it is asked to do.


ROTFLMAO - you say 1. Then go and say 2.

Of course when asked to every platform has to do what its meant to and capabilities are tacked on as required.

That was the entire point which you entirely missed, claimed otherwise, now admit 1.

The USAF operates F-16 by the hundreds. If asked, and when available, a COCOM commander will employ it for whatever mission he/she need it for. That doesn't make that the platform (F-16C) will be optimal for that particular mission. Same is true for the Rhino. The Rhino is a strike fighter. It is a multi-role aircraft so is capable of performing a wide range of missions. That doesn't mean its requirements (that led to its creation) or its performance make it an optimal F-14 replacement.


Please take a class about reading in context - it will truly help you going forward. The manner in which you persistently and obtusely miss the point must need a special consideration.

Nobody has "everything they want" including your beloved US whose honor you so valiantly seek to defend in post after post even when no slight was intended.

The USAF operates F-16s by the hundreds and when it has had to, it has shoehorned them in roles they were never meant for and added capabilities as time went on to make them better for the role!

That was the point! Which you somehow dont seem to be able to get!

Do you think because the F/A-18 E/F is all the USN has and its not a F-14, the USN will not seek to make it as lethal as possible to engage targets far away to the best of the designs capabilities and that it is still inferior to the F-14 across the board? For someone who constantly keeps throwing the word classified around and objective analysis, its clear you are completely off-base what the F/A-18 E/F of today is capable of, sensor wise.

Besides which you seem to think the great US has all the money it wants, never changes plans on the fly, has a tool for every fix. The reality though speaks otherwise for all forces worldwide.

It does OCA/DCA but it doesn't do it that well. Only reason the US Navy accepts this is because that mission has largely gone away. :lol: In fact the OCA is entirely gone while DCA and fleet defense is much lower in demand given the end of the cold war. Same with its sensors and otherrequirements. It wasn't designed to be optimized for that mission. To see that "it has to be" as the USN "needs everything out if" is not very accurate. It can't replicate a larger sensor that is optimized for certain missions like those on the F-22 or F-35 or even the larger sensors on the F-15 etc. The F-18E/F is designed around a trade-space just like everything else and OCA/DCA mission-set is not very heavily weighted in that decision because the need to replace the F-14 with a similar platform was just not there.


All this verbiage just to now admit the part in bold.

After:

Karan: About Rhino, for the USN it is their OCA/DCA and they need everything out of it.

Brar:This is not true and most folks familiar with NAVAIR will vouch for it.


Jeez man, in an effort to just somehow not admit you were mistaken, you will break your keyboard and land up with injury.

There is going to be a substantial difference between an F-15E, or F-15EX with its AESA radar and combat suite, and an F-18 E/F with its AESA radar and combat suite. In BVR across OCA/DCA there will literally be no contest in terms of what a COCOM commander would send out if given a choice. Same when it is pitted with the sensor performance of the F-35/F-22. Those sensors have been designed for higher performance with SwAP provisioned for higher end operating modes particularly as integrated parts of the EW system as a jamming system.


The things we learn on BRF, the USN operates F-15Es and F-15 EXs and F-22s. Of course all are magically available from the USAF if the USN is operating in the middle of the ocean. The need to compulsively reply, somehow prove a completely mistaken, pyrrhic point just doesn't go away

And all those words, and still no evidence in terms of key range criteria and power aperture performance, on how the F-15 APG-63 radar at <50% the power rating was superior to a similar vintage AWG-71 at 10kw. :D

Lets have an acronym context to decide.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2020 11:38

Karan M wrote:Again, if you are asking for this information, you are asking to be spoonfed. Nobody is going to do that. As I said - go back, see what was written and dig


I have read all of his work. I found zero citations to any official data on the specific radars that I pointed to. You claim that official technical data are available on these particular sensors. If this were true this would be fairly substantial revelation and I, and many others, would love to have a chance to go over it.

Karan M wrote:The fact that you think an objective analysis can't be done is all on you. Nobody remotely associated with the subject would agree with you.


I beg to differ. If provided with credible, verifiable, objective technical data one can perform a comparison (on the specific sensors I mentioned). Nothing to that end is available that would allow one to objectively compare across the entire spectrum of sensor performance. I am happy to be corrected if I come across this said data. Not a blog post by someone who does not cite it so that others can review, but a proper academic fact based assessment and evaluation. One that would objectively show that the various generations of these AESA radars were comparable to Soviet/Russian PESA's across the spectrum of relevant performance parameters of interest to an end user.

Karan M wrote:ROTFLMAO - you say 1. Then go and say 2.


Those aren't mutually exclusive. The F-22 is a superior OCA platform to the F-15C. In fact they aren't even in the same league. That doesn't mean the F-15C won't do OCA or be asked to do OCA given a particular COCOM requirement. The F-16C and F-18E likewise are optimized around strike..but are nonetheless, capable of performing a whole spectrum of missions including OCA/DCA. This likewise, doesn't mean they've been optimized for this across their performance and mission systems requirements. Just because the USN has the F-18E/F do the OCA, doesn't mean the Rhino's requirements were framed to make it an all out OCA platform like the N-ATF would have been. In fact just compare the sensor on the Rhino to the ATF or the F-35. Same across other areas.

Do you think because the F/A-18 E/F is all the USN has and its not a F-14, the USN will not seek to make it as lethal as possible to engage targets far away to the best of the designs capabilities? If so, you are living in an alternative world.


How is that relevant? The USN will try to make it as good as they can within the limitations they have to deal with. Those limitations simply don't vanish just because that is all they have. It does not have an optimized sensor as a requirement. The F-22, F-35, and the F-15 operate larger and more capable sensors. The USN does well to get the most out of that sensor they have but your basic limitations are your basic limitations though in this case the platform does well given what the USN needs it for which is a lot different than what they needed the F-14 for (or would have needed the N-ATF for). There is going to be a marked difference in sensor performance when it comes to the F-18E and the F-15E/X for the relevant mission. Nothing, besides a generational change in sensor technology, the USN does will narrow that performance gap. Asking for N-ATF or even F-15EX like sensor performance would have led to design changes on the Rhino which would have made it difficult to base it on a Hornet design and do it affordably. The sensor size and other performance is a trade off. On the F-35, for example, they traded off in the other direction, growing the sensor by about 25% from the initial baseline design (which would have been comparable to the APG-79) and provisioning more SwAP given other uses for it which are more taxing.

Karan M wrote:The things we learn on BRF, the USN operates F-15Es and F-15 EXs and F-22s.


The role of US Naval aviation is different and fits in with other capability available in the joint forces model. Post cold-war re-baseline of missions basically meant that the USAF-ACC owns the OCA mission while the USN owns the AEA mission. This is why when a COCOM commander needs OCA platforms you see F-15's, F-22's or F-35's deploy to that theater (or stationed there permanently). The DCA mission requirement was simply too little for it to significantly influence the Super Hornet's requirements. Post SU collapse the threat from bombers on USN carriers was simply not there. Hence the N-ATF went no where and why the F-18E was made more palatable to the F-14 champions with the USN.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Mar 2020 11:47, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2020 11:45

brar_w wrote:I have read all of his work. I found zero citations to any official data on the specific radars that I pointed to. You claim that official technical data are available on these particular sensors. If this were true this would be fairly substantial revelation and I, and many others, would love to have a chance to go over it.


If you had truly read all his work and understood it, you would have all his references as well. The fact that you are arguing about it clearly indicates you neither understand his work or understand the sources he cites and the methodology he follows.

Forget revelations by Kopp for instance or your "evaluation" of his work which is clearly far beyond semantic verbiage. Please prove how a 10KW class AWG-71 is inferior in parametric range to the APG-63 non AESA variants. No tons of verbiage please. Simple question.

After all, if you can sit in judgement on Kopp, you must be able to do such a simple simple comparison without rushing away handwaving about official sources etc.

I beg to differ. If provided with credible, verifiable, objective technical data one can perform a comparison (on the specific sensors I mentioned). Nothing to that end is available that would allow one to objectively compare across the entire spectrum of sensor performance. I am happy to be corrected if I come across this said data. Not a blog post by someone who does not cite it so that others can review, but a proper academic fact based assessment and evaluation. One that would objectively show that the various generations of these AESA radars were comparable to Soviet/Russian PESA's across the spectrum of relevant performance parameters of interest to an end user.


Again, so many words to state a simple thing that you don't seem to understand his methodology (which BTW i and many other folks who don't even claim to be experts have verified). His "blog posts" were referenced articles and he himself was a contributor to Skolniks book and well established in basic microwave theory. I don't think his antecedents need any more buttressing.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. The F-22 is a superior OCA platform to the F-15C. In fact they aren't even in the same league. That doesn't mean the F-15C won't do OCA or be asked to do OCA given a particular COCOM requirement. The F-16C and F-18E likewise are optimized around strike..but are nonetheless, capable of performing a whole spectrum of missions including OCA/DCA. This likewise, doesn't mean they've been optimized for this across their performance and mission systems requirements. Just because the USN has the F-18E/F do the OCA, doesn't mean the Rhino's requirements were framed to make it an all out OCA platform like the N-ATF would have been. In fact just compare the sensor on the Rhino to the ATF or the F-35. Same across other areas.


All those F-22s and F-16s flying off the USN carriers must sure be giving the F-18 guys an easy time.
Reference the part in bold, glad to see you finally getting it, despite dancing around so much.

How is that relevant? The USN will try to make it as good as they can within the limitations they have to deal with. Those limitations simply don't vanish just because that is all they have. It does not have an optimized sensor as a requirement. The F-22, F-35, and the F-15 operate larger and more capable sensors. The USN does well to get the most out of that sensor they have but your basic limitations are your basic limitations though in this case the platform does well given what the USN needs it for which is a lot different than what they needed the F-14 for (or would have needed the N-ATF for).


Of course it is relevant, because its what the F/A-18 E/F is what they have and what they can do. You keep dancing around the fact the USN does not operate the F-22 and F-15 as well. And both fighters have also picked up additional capabilities.

Either the US is incompetent or you are refusing to admit what they are doing. Take your pick.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2020 11:53

Karan M wrote:he fact that you are arguing about it clearly indicates you neither understand his work or understand the sources he cites and the methodology he follows.


What sources? Where is the data he cites or uses in his analysis?

Karan M wrote:Again, so many words to state a simple thing that you don't seem to understand his methodology


What does he use? If he has done an academic assessment and you have gotten it..and understand it..how hard it is to guide someone else to that data? So that others can use it and evaluate on their own?

The fact that you are arguing about it clearly indicates you neither understand his work or understand the sources he cites and the methodology he follows.


Forget his methodology or my lack of understanding. What sources does he use? Where is the data coming from?

Please prove how a 10KW class AWG-71 is inferior in parametric range to the APG-63. No tons of verbiage please. Simple question.


I don't and never claimed to have data to prove that one was superior to another. All I said was that I have been witness to how US Navy pilots explained the difference in mission sets and how the USAF optimized its platform for one mission (BVR OCA and taking on fighters) while the USN optimized more for the bomber threat. The presentation that I saw drew that difference and pointed to the difference between those two missions and how being optimized for one didn't guarantee better performance on the other, citing examples of this difference when these platforms faced off during training. The Hushkit article was very Iranian specific and based on their need which would make the F-14 a fairly easy winner given their requirements and geographic needs. The F-14 is a much better DCA platform than the F-15A-C. That is true even today (and the F-15E is a better DCA platfrom than the F-15C as well).

Karan M wrote:Reference the part in bold, glad to see you finally getting it, despite dancing around so much.


The part in bold does not mean that the Rhino requirements were optimized for OCA/DCA. The sensor size, and other decisions made on the program traded off much of the higher end capability. This is also true for the F-35 BTW. The ATF determined an 8 IWB missile load-out for optimal OCA/DCA. The F-35 is designed for 6 missile max carriage. This was part of the trade off just like the trades made on the F-18E/F. Just because the USN has the F-18E/F do the OCA/DCA mission for a small percentage of the fleet doesn't mean that they can magically extract a level of performance out of the aircraft that they traded away when they developed the requirements..

Karan M wrote:All those F-22s and F-16s flying off the USN carriers must sure be giving the F-18 guys an easy time.


They don't need that capability. If the USN had the OCA mission, or the DCA demands were as important as those on the USAF, they would have kept the N-ATF. Carrier aviation is something that is not under the US Navy but under the COCOM to which that carrier is assigned. How that commander wishes to employ naval air power determines how the USN provides the force structure. Post Cold War the roles and missions were relaxed and the USAF and USN divided certain missions while others just went away totally. The USAF, for example, retired its EF-111 fleet and off-loaded the entire tactical AEA mission to the USN and USMC. The USN likewise no longer is the force provider for COCOM OCA needs..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2020 12:09

brar_w wrote:What sources? Where is the data he cites or uses in his analysis?


Why would you expect anyone to spoonfeed you this? Please cross-reference. Pull out journals. It doesn't take much beyond solid slogging to see the references he used. Its hilarious to see you stuck on references when you can't even begin to understand its not the sources he uses which are important but something else entirely, which had him pulled down. Do you think if we approach a domain expert he is going to spoonfeed you and me for what is so glaringly obvious to him? Do you think he has all the patience in the world to sit and explain when we should be doing the leg-work?

What does he use? If he has done an academic assessment and you have gotten it..and understand it..how hard it is to guide someone else to that data? So that others can use it and evaluate on their own? Forget his methodology or my lack of understanding. What sources does he use? Where is the data coming from?


He uses his brains, his skill and awareness of the domain to understand different technologies. Why should we forget his methodology or your/our/my lack of understanding? Right now, just below you have more or less openly admitted you are unable to understand the basic difference between two entirely different capabilities which would have been clearly obvious to someone like Kopp who bases his work on such intuitive understanding of the technology. What you are expecting is that Kopp and others like him would be like "oh, he saw a link or an AvWeek article or a classified presentation" which said x performance and are arguing about it. Do you still not see how pointless it is to argue on these lines?

Do you think he was asked to stop because he could do google-fu or because his secret sources in the USN were feeding him super duper info on 10,00000 word articles full of OCA/DCA/FCA/AMCA/etc etc type of acronyms? Or because he was doing something far far more valuable? Think for a second. Stop compulsively arguing and consider the point.

Please prove how a 10KW class AWG-71 is inferior in parametric range to the APG-63. No tons of verbiage please. Simple question.


I don't and never claimed to have data to prove that one was superior to another. All I said was that I have been witness to how US Navy pilots explained the difference in mission sets and how the USAF optimized its platform for one mission (BVR OCA and taking on fighters) while the USN optimized more for the bomber threat. The presentation that I saw drew that difference and pointed to the difference between those two missions and how being optimized for one didn't guarantee better performance on the other, citing examples of this difference when these platforms faced off during training. The Hushkit article was very Iranian specific and based on their need which would make the F-14 a fairly easy winner given their requirements and geographic needs.


LOL - there you go,how will you even begin to discern how much of what the USAF said above vs the USN became a non sequitur given the AWG-71 could outperform the APG-63 handily and its technology insertions by the time of the AWG-71 took away most of the AWG-9 's basic issues and that the Iranian experience showed that even before hand itself the AWG-9 proved that your point about the USAF being superior in "BVR OCA and taking on fighters" was quite thoroughly countered by actual combat experience. As if the USN sat on its butt and didn't keep adding tech insertions back to the F-14.

In short, you are going by what x said, and y said whereas the point was about achieving the level of methodological expertise one didn't need to go for he said, she said and classified source said for things that are too obvious.

If you could do a parametric analysis, which you were asked to do and you couldn't/wouldnt, you wouldn't need to debate the above either. You'd just know. That's the difference between relying on he said, she said and what the information speaks. That's the point. Forget "classified data" or "sources".

The rest of your post is just the usual 40,000 words to reluctantly admit the fact that you now admit the Rhino does OCA/DCA etc after all your claims it couldn't. Just so many words wherein a simple "I didnt get what you meant and I was mistaken" would have done. You must be brilliant in presentations. Must have all the time in the world.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2020 12:33

Karan M wrote:Why would you expect anyone to spoonfeed you this? Please cross-reference. Pull out journals. It doesn't take much beyond solid slogging to see the references he used.


For the nth time. I have read his stuff. I did not see any technical data or any reference to any performance claims of the said radars that I have talked about. Even the designers of the AN/APG-77 and -81 have published their research papers in technical journals (specific to these radars), and even they stayed well away from providing technical specifics.

I am not saying he doesn't have domain knowledge but again, I was told he used hard facts and data obtained on the said systems. And I continue to ask, what is that data..how did he get to publish that data when the developers themselves didn't? And again, what data are you talking of which provides specifics on the performance of these 2-3 generation of AESA radars. I would love to see it. Specific data is most certainly not there in his publications.

I get it, he is very smart and I am incapable of understanding his academic work. And may never will. But the big revelation was that he has a good technical grasp on the capability on these 3-4 US AESA radars and how they've evolved over the last 2 decades. Details, that those designers themselves have not been allowed to publish. I would love to see them..even though I may be completely incapable of understanding them.

Do you think he has all the patience in the world to sit and explain when we should be doing the leg-work?


You mean if he is going to make a claim based on specific technical knowledge, knowledge which can only be obtained from technical detail that are classified, it is unreasonable to ask to see the underlying data? Where did he get the performance specs from the earlier mentioned AESA radars? And how did he model the performance evolution from a radar designed in the early to mid 1990's vs one designed a decade later? Did he also have access to that data? and if so, could I see it?

There is a difference between an objective analysis, one based on access to technical data, and just stating an opinion based on broader domain knowledge or guesstimating certain performance metrics and using product brochures. If he used actual data..then that is a revelation and I beg you to provide the specific performance figures and the underlying technical details.

Do you think he was asked to stop because he could do google-fu or because his secret sources in the USN were feeding him super duper info on 10,00000 word articles full of OCA/DCA/FCA/AMCA/etc etc type of acronyms? Or because he was doing something far far more valuable? Think for a second. Stop compulsively arguing and consider the point.


So did he use hard technical details on the earlier mentioned radars? Did he or did he not? If he did, could you provide some of those? Does he provide those so that others can see them? Does he ever claim to have access to data that is classified and not publicly released?

LOL - there you go,how will you even begin to discern how much of what the USAF said above vs the USN became a non sequitur given the AWG-71 could outperform the APG-63 handily and its technology insertions by the time of the AWG-71 took away most of the AWG-9 's basic issues and that the Iranian experience showed that even before hand itself the AWG-9 proved your point about the USAF being superior in "BVR OCA and taking on fighters" was quite thoroughly countered by actual combat experience. As if the USN sat on its butt and didn't keep adding tech insertions back to the F-14.


From the very first post on the matter, I was referencing to what I witnessed coming out of a USN pilot who presented. Not the USAF. And as I said then and repeatedly thereafter, he said that when it came to the said mission or a one on one engagement the F-15 was a superior platform in many aspects but that when it came to the threat the F-14 was designed to defeat the F-15 really had no chance. The Iranian pilot really doesn't say anything to that end. He never went up against an F-15 pilot in an engagement.

I never ever claimed that I have technical data that objectively shows that the F-14's could perform better compared to the F-15 in a said mission. Or Vice Versa. All i said was that, as a rebuttal to one person's opinion in an article, I have seen counter points made by a USN pilot whose presentation I happened to have witnessed and who detailed how the F-15 was a highly capable adversary when they gamed it out and how it was in fact better at what it did than the F-14 and the F-14 better at what the USN really optimized it for with its longer ranged missile and IRST.

words to reluctantly admit the fact that you now admit the Rhino does OCA/DCA etc after all your claims it couldn't.


Come on man. I never EVER claimed that the Rhino couldn't do OCA/DCA as in there is some technical limitation that prevents it from doing the said mission. What i mentioned was that it is not a preferred OCA/DCA platform for the COCOM and that the USN did not value that mission very heavily when developing it. One can see how that is reflected in the requirements they framed for the Super Hornet, requirements which weren't really influenced by their OCA/DCA platform - the F-14 - but were more influenced by how can they take the basic Hornet and get a little bit more out of at an affordable unit cost given they needed to rebuild their fleet after the cold-war was over against very different requirements.There is a difference between being able to do a particular mission and being optimized for it. Technically, there is nothing that prevents the F-22A from employing the JDAM and SDB and function as a strike platform. However in that capacity it is by far a sub-optimal platform and not really optimized for that mission.

You see those higher end requirements reflected in the F-35's sensor footprint. In fact, some of those came directly from the USN because they had more wiggle room and influence on that program allowing them to extract concessions. Requirements such as a larger radar, with more SWaP provisioned for higher end tasks and networking and integration with a more capable EW suite. The F-18E/F was never designed to that level and the changes are being gradually introduced to make it better block by block but it will always be limited by the initial trades that were made on that platform like the sensor footprint, power and thermal margins, internal fuel etc etc. Just like the F-35 would always have to live with the fact that it was always designed with a maximum of 6 MRAAM's in mind. They can make the individual weapon more capable..but they can't pack 8 AMRAAM/AIM-9 sized missiles in there. Even dumb folks like me can look at what the USN and USAF wanted from a next generation OCA/DCA platform in the 1990's (ATF and N-ATF program) and how much of that was ported over to the F-18E/F program. That doesn't mean that the F-18E/F can't do the mission..All it means was that some of that performance was traded away for the sake of using the Hornet as a baseline, and for affordability..and because the main threat to the US Aircraft Carriers disappeared allowing those trades to be made more comfortably.

On the F-14 vs F-15. Someone referenced to an Iranian pilot's interview and comments. I merely mentioned that I have heard differently from ex USN pilot presentations. In fact the Iranian pilot's confidence (or as it appeared in the interview) in the Phoenix is not reflected in what I have heard from other operators. But maybe he is right and they are wrong or the other way around. It was just an anecdotal reference to provide a different pov to an interview of one pilot.

I never claimed to have done a technical analysis of the said radars or having published an article on that with proper citations that I could send your way so that you could, for yourself, determine whether I was on the right track or not.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Mar 2020 13:58, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2020 12:59

brar_w wrote:For the nth time. I have read his stuff. I did not see any technical data or any reference to any performance claims of the said radars that I have talked about. Even the designers of the AN/APG-77 and -81 have published their research papers in technical journals (specific to these radars), and even they stayed well away from providing technical specifics.

I am not saying he doesn't have domain knowledge but again, I was told he used hard facts and data obtained on the said systems. And I continue to ask, what is that data..how did he get to publish that data when the developers themselves didn't? And again, what data are you talking of which provides specifics on the performance of these 2-3 generation of AESA radars. I would love to see it. Specific data is most certainly not there in his publications.


The fact that you need "specific data" clearly shows you simply don't get the technical analysis of the level Kopp was doing and the manner in which he was literally giving away way too much.

You think the developers don't give away data? Any researcher at the level of Kopp can take a 100 different unrelated bits of information from various vendors, suppliers, journals and draw such pointed conclusions its no longer funny. And that's precisely what made him so dangerous.

I get it, he is very smart and I am incapable of understanding his academic work. And may never will. But the big revelation was that he has a good technical grasp on the capability on these 3-4 US AESA radars and how they've evolved over the last 2 decades. Details, that those designers themselves have not been allowed to publish. I would love to see them..even though I may be completely incapable of understanding them.


Dude you may think you are being very sarcastic and referring to his "academic work" and your 3-4 US AESA radars are oh-so-mysterious. But the problem is they aren't - nothing in the domain is really that mysterious to dedicated researchers. If its a relevation, then it firmly means that you are simply not familiar with the domain to the level he was, and the funny part was Kopp was on the commercial side of things, but a savant nonetheless.
Any radar designer working on cutting edge tech today, and with a reasonable cross understanding can pull huge amounts of info out from commercial capabilities, stuff he picks up from conferences, the plethora of published research and what he knows of developments in an adjacent field.
Kindly spend some time with the guys who do this in the commercial domain. You'll be surprised.

You mean if he is going to make a claim based on specific technical knowledge, knowledge which can only be obtained from technical detail that are classified, it is unreasonable to ask to see the underlying data? Where did he get the performance specs from the earlier mentioned AESA radars? And how did he model the performance evolution from a radar designed in the early to mid 1990's vs one designed a decade later? Did he also have access to that data? and if so, could I see it?


Use google, go to his website if its still up, see his basic thinking and outline. Cross compare to earlier studies, and his earlier published work. Is it that hard? And reference the part in bold - are you serious?

There is a difference between an objective analysis, one based on access to technical data, and just stating an opinion based on broader domain knowledge or guesstimating certain performance metrics and using product brochures. If he used actual data..then that is a revelation and I beg you to provide the specific performance figures and the underlying technical details.


I am sorry, but at this point I am done because if you can't compare two FCRs and do even a basic parametric analysis and have to rely completely on a line of thinking like the above "oh you must have access to classified data to do an objective analysis", I am talking to a wall. You simply don't seem to understand that to true domain experts, they are well aware of the bleeding edge in their field, have tons of information regarding what's available, and can cross reference to come up with sufficiently capable estimates. If you dont know this, and are arguing this point, then seriously theres little left to talk about. And despite all the hints, you seem singularly incapable of actually going to his site and seeing what he did and why its important. Instead you'd rather sit here and jaw-jaw. Again, a good waste of time.

So did he use hard technical details on the earlier mentioned radars? Did he or did he not? If he did, could you provide some of those? Does he provide those so that others can see them? Does he ever claim to have access to data that is classified and not publicly released?


I'll do all that, once you use Kopps methods and do a basic parametric analysis of 2 FCRs. Once you do that, and demonstrate you actually understand the methods he used, then perhaps its worth everyone's time to go through all this.

From the very first post on the matter, I was referencing to what I witnessed coming out of a USN pilot who presented. Not the USAF. And as I said then and repeatedly thereafter, he said that when it came to the said mission or a one on one engagement the F-15 was a superior platform in many aspects but that when it came to the threat the F-14 was designed to defeat the F-15 really had no chance. The Iranian pilot really doesn't say anything to that end. He never went up against an F-15 pilot in an engagement.


More handwaving, no parametric analysis whatsoever. Jeez man, 10000000 words, but no technical data for one who claims others should provide all the data etc. I asked you to do a very simple thing which you simply don't seem to be able to do, for one who talks so much about analysis, and this data, that data. Please come up with a comparison of the APG-63 vs the AWG-71 and prove the point that the APG-63 is superior in terms of parametric range performance than the AWG-71. The Iranian pilot and pilot accounts of the conflict routinely show long range kills against fighter sized targets. Theres enough info on the F-15 to draw further conclusions. Fact is you jumped to a conclusion without having done the number crunching. What's truly ironic is that you want to sit on judgement of Kopp et al, when you can't do what to him was a relatively trivial task. If you start thinking on those lines then at least you might begin to understand what he did makes sense.

If you can't do this simple thing, then all the rest of the above is mere hand-waving.

Come on man. I never EVER claimed that the Rhino couldn't do OCA/DCA. What i mentioned was that it is not a preferred OCA/DCA platform for the COCOM and that the USN did not value that mission very heavily when developing it. One can see how that is reflected in the requirements they framed for the Super Hornet, requirements which weren't really influenced by their OCA/DCA platform - the F-14 - but were more influenced by how can they take the basic Hornet and get a little bit more out of at an affordable unit cost given they needed to rebuild their fleet after the cold-war was over against very different requirements.

You see those higher end requirements reflected in the F-35's sensor footprint. In fact, some of those came directly from the USN because they had more wiggle room and influence on that program. Requirements such as a larger radar, with more SWaP provisioned for higher end tasks and networking and integration with a more capable EW suite. The F-18E/F was never designed to that level and the changes are being gradually introduced to make it better block by block but it will always be limited by the initial trades that were made on that platform like the sensor footprint, power and thermal margins, internal fuel etc etc. Just like the F-35 would always have to live with the fact that it was always designed with a maximum of 6 MRAAM's in mind. They can make the individual weapon more capable..but they can't pack 8 AMRAAM/AIM-9 sized missiles in there.


Just pointing out that you are stating that Rhino can do OCA/DCA - and that one line was all it would have taken.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2020 13:21

Karan M wrote:The fact that you need "specific data" clearly shows you simply don't get the technical analysis of the level Kopp was doing and the manner in which he was literally giving away way too much.


So does he or does he not provide specific data on the said radars and their future iterations? I just want to be clear on that because I was under the impression that he did a proper evaluation of the radars with equal level of technical data on each. Data which he could have only gotten via access to the designers or operators or technical documents pertaining to these radars.

Karan M wrote:You think the developers don't give away data? Any researcher at the level of Kopp can take a 100 different unrelated bits of information from various vendors, suppliers, journals and draw such pointed conclusions its no longer funny. And that's precisely what made him so dangerous.


So is it now that he doesn't cite specific technical information but he infiltrated deep into both US and Russian radar manufacturers and was able to walk out with data that was classified and not only have that for his own knowledge but was able to use it in his publications. And I suppose we are jsut supposed to believe that he did all this without much proof of how much he was able to get his hands on despite even the developers of the radars not being allowed to reference technical details in their own primary definitive publications on the said radars. It must be really frustrating to not get permission to cite your life's work in your own publication on a sensor, or on the program but someone can just slip in get all those juicy details..do the same on Russian radars..and publish a blog post or article claiming to have everything required to do an objective analysis that can withstand scrutiny.

In reality however Kopp did neither. He used his knowledge and publicly available data to analyze to whatever degree he could given the limitations of what he had to play with. The publicly available data is very scant and thus he generally avoids going into hard and objective technical comparisons between very specific sensors based on real world data.

This is an interesting discussion but not even Kopp would claim to have all the information required to do an actual assessment and apples to apples comparison between various generations of Russian PESA radars and US AESA radars. Of course that comparison would subsequently move over to AESA on AESA now that the Russians will field the first Su-57 sometime later this year..but he never claimed he had the information to do a head for head.

Karan M wrote:But the problem is they aren't - nothing in the domain is really that mysterious to dedicated researchers.


It most certainly is especially when you do head to head comparisons which is wrapped around in a large blanket of assumptions and subjective assessments of attributed capability and how it is integrated and brought together as part of a system. That has evolved greatly from the early 1990's when the first prototypes of those sensors flew..same for both sides. But AESA radars and their capability have evolved by leaps and bounds. The F-15 AESA was demonstrating Electronic Attack on live emitters more than a decade ago. This was a capability that even the F-22/23/ATF's demonstrator radars didn't have and it was only subsequently architectured into the system after upgrading its T/R modules, processors and software. Things change and there is a lot of detail, on both sides, that you can't model unless you have access to hard data and technical details. But for the most part Kopp avoids those direct technical comparisons..

Use google, go to his website if its still up, see his basic thinking and outline. Cross compare to earlier studies, and his earlier published work. Is it that hard? And reference the part in bold - are you serious?


I have read almost all of his work and have even sat through a number of his presentations. None of that provides any level of technical data or even a direct sensor technical evaluation. He doesn't even claim to do that. I draw a distinction between his work that is published in peer reviewed publication and his work for the organization which basically accounted for advocacy that F-18E/F and F-35 were crap and only his modifications to F-111 and the F-22 could save Australia from a certain defeat. He even assumed in some that the Flankers could get a BVR first shot against the F-35 and that the F-35 will be " armed in an air superiority configuration with two AIM-120 Missile" (when it can carry 4 at baseline and designed for 6 in total)..of course all the while using dated and cherry picked Aviation Week sources for his radar estimates and not any official source.

For example. despite having better off the cuff radar range data on some of these radars, sourced from AvWeek, he continuous to attribute roughly 20% less performance to the F-22 AESA radars to what AvWeek itself has reported to have been a possibility. Even those print magazine source data are likely to have been heavily scrubbed and for public consumption, just like RCS comparisons to insects and marbles...etc... That is to say, he is using statements (as opposed to hard technical details) to attribute performance and even there he is cherry picking ones which make the point that F-18/F-35 are crap and APA's idea of a APA'ized F-111 and F-22 is the way to go. This goes on into the F-35 as well where it was assumed, by many until the mid to late 2000's, that the radar will have similar performance to the F-18E/F when the reality turned out that the sensor requirements were increased and that it sports a larger, more powerful radar. Yet his orgs analysis never updated that or reflected that new reality based on what is now publicly released information that has been corrected over time.

His journal published work and his stuff for APA are very separate things. Large elements of his organizations' work and analysis was strongly rebutted by the Australian operators who actually had access to classified data.

And the designers of those radars don't claim to provide details either in their own publications either. In fact, in their publication on the APG-77 back in the day, the designers steered well away from performance specs (wouldn't have gotten published otherwise). All they mentioned was the effort it took to get their, the concept of how the sensor was developed (CONOPS) and how they took a long hard look at the PESA vs AESA debate (as they had an advanced and functional PESA at the time of beginning this development) and chose to go all in into AESA radars instead of pushing the boundaries of PESA which would have been simpler technically and industrially. Pretty much everyone in the world did the same or plans to do the same.

And the part in bold is very very relevant. An AESA antenna flying in the early 1990's is very different to practically a clean sheet AESA radar coupled with an extensive ECS upgrade. This besides just a generational shift in T/R module tech that has occurred. The requirements shift and the demands from the sensor increase and the greater SwAP provisions allow you to do more with that sensor. How does he know what the requirements are going to be even before they are written?

Just pointing out that you are stating that Rhino can do OCA/DCA - and that one line was all it would have taken.


And that magically means that because it can do the mission..the USN must have put in the most capable sensor it could within the technical means of it and its industrial suppliers right? Because sensor trades, based on mission emphasis, are clearly not a thing..

Requirements matter a lot. There is a reason the F-35 packs a lot more t/r modules than the Rhino, or why the F-15 AESA packs more t/r modules than an F-16 (or pretty much anything that the west has built that is currently operational). Similarly, there is a difference in a minimally intrusive backfit (like what you see on the F-16 AESA modernization) and a substantially sensor capability enhancement like what you see on the F-15E/EX. That radar "technology" and performance is not comparable..the same between comparing an AN/APG-79 to an APG-82. One sensor is quite a bit smaller and therefore has its limitations for a given mission. Given they are of the same lineage, unless the smaller sensor somehow magically acquires a generational leap in technology it will never be optimal for that mission given the basic decision made during its design and platform. It will do the mission when asked to do but it is not a sensor that was born from some cutting edge Air to Air or OCA/DCA requirements. If it had, it would have resembled the sensor on the ATF/N-ATF because at that time that was what the bleeding edge was. Instead, the USN chose to dilute requirements, go for a smaller sensor, and provisioned requirements with affordability and cost/risk in mind. The AN/APG-79 is not the bleeding edge AESA in the US radar stable, even though by all accounts it is a fairly good performer. The AN/APG-77, AN/APG-82 and particularly the AN/APG-81 are what you will consider the top of the line in that family of radars, at least, when it comes to the relevant A2A performance and capability. And the fact that the USN has no F-22's or F-16's etc doesn't mean anything to this. They created the requirements balancing different competing priorities. The radar size, and the overall aircraft performance and capability reflects that trade off.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2020 22:02

brar_w wrote:So does he or does he not provide specific data on the said radars and their future iterations? I just want to be clear on that because I was under the impression that he did a proper evaluation of the radars with equal level of technical data on each. Data which he could have only gotten via access to the designers or operators or technical documents pertaining to these radars.

So is it now that he doesn't cite specific technical information but he infiltrated deep into both US and Russian radar manufacturers and was able to walk out with data that was classified and not only have that for his own knowledge but was able to use it in his publications. And I suppose we are jsut supposed to believe that he did all this without much proof of how much he was able to get his hands on despite even the developers of the radars not being allowed to reference technical details in their own primary definitive publications on the said radars. It must be really frustrating to not get permission to cite your life's work in your own publication on a sensor, or on the program but someone can just slip in get all those juicy details..do the same on Russian radars..and publish a blog post or article claiming to have everything required to do an objective analysis that can withstand scrutiny.

In reality however Kopp did neither. He used his knowledge and publicly available data to analyze to whatever degree he could given the limitations of what he had to play with. The publicly available data is very scant and thus he generally avoids going into hard and objective technical comparisons between very specific sensors based on real world data.

This is an interesting discussion but not even Kopp would claim to have all the information required to do an actual assessment and apples to apples comparison between various generations of Russian PESA radars and US AESA radars. Of course that comparison would subsequently move over to AESA on AESA now that the Russians will field the first Su-57 sometime later this year..but he never claimed he had the information to do a head for head.

It most certainly is especially when you do head to head comparisons which is wrapped around in a large blanket of assumptions and subjective assessments of attributed capability and how it is integrated and brought together as part of a system. That has evolved greatly from the early 1990's when the first prototypes of those sensors flew..same for both sides. But AESA radars and their capability have evolved by leaps and bounds. The F-15 AESA was demonstrating Electronic Attack on live emitters more than a decade ago. This was a capability that even the F-22/23/ATF's demonstrator radars didn't have and it was only subsequently architectured into the system after upgrading its T/R modules, processors and software. Things change and there is a lot of detail, on both sides, that you can't model unless you have access to hard data and technical details. But for the most part Kopp avoids those direct technical comparisons..

I have read almost all of his work and have even sat through a number of his presentations. None of that provides any level of technical data or even a direct sensor technical evaluation. He doesn't even claim to do that. I draw a distinction between his work that is published in peer reviewed publication and his work for the organization which basically accounted for advocacy that F-18E/F and F-35 were crap and only his modifications to F-111 and the F-22 could save Australia from a certain defeat. He even assumed in some that the Flankers could get a BVR first shot against the F-35 and that the F-35 will be " armed in an air superiority configuration with two AIM-120 Missile" (when it can carry 4 at baseline and designed for 6 in total)..of course all the while using dated and cherry picked Aviation Week sources for his radar estimates and not any official source.


Brar, at this point you are just doing the same stuff all over again.

Resorting to a ton of verbiage to account for the fact that you are yet to provide a simple parametric analysis of the AWG-71 vs APG-63. Unless you can do that, all the above is just helium. You claim his work is scant and he has scant data to go on, but you yourself can't or won't do an analysis of the kind that Kopp and his clan routinely do.

Again, if you think you know better than Kopp, please put up a parametric analysis of AWG-9/71 vs APG-63 to back up your claimed superiority of the latter vs the former, to back up or rebut what some USN guy or USAF guy said and then we can go from there.

Otherwise, its the same old same old - this guy said, he said, she said, seashells by the seashore.

This is hilarious - I am asking you to be more data driven. You keep getting more and more and more wordy in return.

Somebody asks you for a presentation which is less wordy and more numbers. You come back with a word doc converted to a PPT file.

So just say no - I can't do this parametric analysis to prove that the AWG-71 is inferior to the APG-63. Simple. Because if you could, you'd realize how absurd that initial claim of the USAF F-15 being superior to the F-14 vs fighters overall was, given the latter also went on to take considerable improvements and retained its power rating. Something a guy like Kopp can pick up right off the bat, but you didn't and missed the point.

For example. despite having better off the cuff radar range data on some of these radars, sourced from AvWeek, he continuous to attribute roughly 20% less performance to the F-22 AESA radars to what AvWeek itself has reported to have been a possibility. Even those print magazine source data are likely to have been heavily scrubbed and for public consumption, just like RCS comparisons to insects and marbles...etc... That is to say, he is using statements (as opposed to hard technical details) to attribute performance and even there he is cherry picking ones which make the point that F-18/F-35 are crap and APA's idea of a APA'ized F-111 and F-22 is the way to go. This goes on into the F-35 as well where it was assumed, by many until the mid to late 2000's, that the radar will have similar performance to the F-18E/F when the reality turned out that the sensor requirements were increased and that it sports a larger, more powerful radar. Yet his orgs analysis never updated that or reflected that new reality based on what is now publicly released information that has been corrected over time.


Forget what AvWeek said or he said, she said. Lets just go with the methodology. Use his methodology, create a parametric analysis of the AESA or MSAs and lets see what's wrong with Kopps approach.

Funny part is I don't even disagree that he shows the F/A-18 E/F and F-35 in a "bad light". What's even more amusing is what he thought was a "bad light" is also reluctantly admitted by him to be still solid performance.

You have to do it. Otherwise, its just he said, she said. And somewhere, you have to get your hands dirty bro. We can't just go on with 40,000 lines of text alone.

His journal published work and his stuff for APA are very separate things. Large elements of his organizations' work and analysis was strongly rebutted by the Australian operators who actually had access to classified data.

And the designers of those radars don't claim to provide details either in their own publications either. In fact, in their publication on the APG-77 back in the day, the designers steered well away from performance specs (wouldn't have gotten published otherwise). All they mentioned was the effort it took to get their, the concept of how the sensor was developed (CONOPS) and how they took a long hard look at the PESA vs AESA debate (as they had an advanced and functional PESA at the time of beginning this development) and chose to go all in into AESA radars instead of pushing the boundaries of PESA which would have been simpler technically and industrially. Pretty much everyone in the world did the same or plans to do the same.

And the part in bold is very very relevant. An AESA antenna flying in the early 1990's is very different to practically a clean sheet AESA radar coupled with an extensive ECS upgrade. This besides just a generational shift in T/R module tech that has occurred. The requirements shift and the demands from the sensor increase and the greater SwAP provisions allow you to do more with that sensor. How does he know what the requirements are going to be even before they are written?


Again, so many so many words.

If his work was so strongly rebutted why did the Aussie Govmt lean on him and his org so strongly to have him stop publishing his analyses? This reminds me of the hilarious "rebuttal" of the RAND study on the JSF by the two ex fighter guys by the JSF team which also coincidentally I am sure, let to both the chaps having to leave RAND. I am sure you will assure us in a 40k word post it was all legit and they were all barking up the wrong tree and LM had nothing to do with it. Nor did it have anything to do with Bill Sweetman leaving Av Week.

And why would you think somebody needs to "write requirements" to know what the state of the art is in any field and to which level it can be taken?

At this point..I can't even.. do you seriously think researchers in any field wait for "requirements" to determine competitor capabilities and lack the domain expertise to put 2+2 together in their respective fields and make informed estimates which they constantly iterate vs released data? Jeez man.

You say you sit through all fancy presentations. How can you not know this?!?

And that magically means that because it can do the mission..the USN must have put in the most capable sensor it could within the technical means of it and its industrial suppliers right? Because sensor trades, based on mission emphasis, are clearly not a thing..

Requirements matter a lot. There is a reason the F-35 packs a lot more t/r modules than the Rhino, or why the F-15 AESA packs more t/r modules than an F-16 (or pretty much anything that the west has built that is currently operational). Similarly, there is a difference in a minimally intrusive backfit (like what you see on the F-16 AESA modernization) and a substantially sensor capability enhancement like what you see on the F-15E/EX. That radar "technology" and performance is not comparable..the same between comparing an AN/APG-79 to an APG-82. One sensor is quite a bit smaller and therefore has its limitations for a given mission. Given they are of the same lineage, unless the smaller sensor somehow magically acquires a generational leap in technology it will never be optimal for that mission given the basic decision made during its design and platform. It will do the mission when asked to do but it is not a sensor that was born from some cutting edge Air to Air or OCA/DCA requirements. If it had, it would have resembled the sensor on the ATF/N-ATF because at that time that was what the bleeding edge was. Instead, the USN chose to dilute requirements, go for a smaller sensor, and provisioned requirements with affordability and cost/risk in mind. The AN/APG-79 is not the bleeding edge AESA in the US radar stable, even though by all accounts it is a fairly good performer. The AN/APG-77, AN/APG-82 and particularly the AN/APG-81 are what you will consider the top of the line in that family of radars, at least, when it comes to the relevant A2A performance and capability. And the fact that the USN has no F-22's or F-16's etc doesn't mean anything to this. They created the requirements balancing different competing priorities. The radar size, and the overall aircraft performance and capability reflects that trade off.


Again, 40000 words to basically admit that the F/A-18 E/F does OCA/DCA unlike what you originally claimed with such certitude.

And as you have rather reluctantly admitted the USN does not operate the F-15 EX or F-16 or F-22 it makes do with the F/A-18 E/F and has constantly added capabilities to it to do what the F-14 once did because till the F-35 comes it was the only game in town.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests