John wrote:Karan M wrote:This kind of off the cuff, poorly researched statements unfortunately detracts from the quality of the forum. Do you realize the Spectra is merely a self-defense suite in the higher bands and cannot be used against IADS despite fanciful claims to the contrary? Please don't give us the fanciful statements of disappearing from Libyan radars etc. The fact that Spectra is but a glorified SPJ is why the IAF has asked for additional low band jammers and a towed decoy set-up for protection against SAMs. And the Russians have very sophisticated jammers. Their SAP-518, SAP-14, and the entire EW package, part of the Khibiny family are nothing to dismiss either.
Yes Spectra is Def defense suite and please cite your sources on Spectra.
So I have to cite my sources and explain the very things you should have known yourself before you made such claims? Please first figure out what a SPJ does. The SP - exists for a reason, its self protection. Next, look at the bands it functions on, after that, go check the bands typical ground based surveillance and fire control radars function on. Then after that, go look at the power profiles these radars have. Then you will realize how *totally mistaken* your implied claims that Spectra is something sophisticated that would allow it to jam an IADS, are. It cannot, as it does not even operate on those bands most surveillance radar operate on, and nor does it have the power profile to do so, for high power FCRs. A S-4XX class system would defeat it. The Spectra is designed to fight other aircraft's FCRs. If it comes across a lightweight GBAD, sure, it will have some success. But it wasn't meant for it. All the fancy claims of in-phase cancellation etc are all internet hearsay. Its a competent SPJ, that's it.
John wrote:SAP-518 is quite dated and known to interfere with other sub systems
Can you please explain on what grounds SAP-518 is "quite dated"? Can you please specify which modes it has, and what makes it dated?
Next your other mistaken statement it is known to interfere with other sub-systems. Perhaps it hasn't struck you that the SAP-518 was designed as part of a Russian EW suite, with an all Russian RWR, SPJ and radar complex. India chose to add the SAP-518 to its own customized fit. If the RWR doesn't auto-cue the SAP-518, that's on us, because we don't want to share our critical EW data with the Russians and vice versa. These are IP control issues common across the world, the same reason why the Australians had to ditch their homegrown RWR and revert to a US one on their F/A-18s when they realized they couldn't get what they wanted. We are choosing to continue on our own path and add our own ASPJ. The SAP-518 can still be operated in manual mode (heck even auto-cue may have been enabled and we won't talk about it for obvious reasons) and there is no question of interference, due to the presence of specific avionics which exist in the Su-30 for this specific purpose. Again, if you knew the topic, you'd know this.
John wrote:and the pod itself is very heavy and greatly affects Flanker flight performance.
Of course it's heavy! When you want to put out the kind of offensive jamming performance the SAP-518 does, you don't get it cheap. There are trade-offs. Do you think the pods festooned on the F/A-18 Growler don't affect its flight performance? The IAF is well within its rights to ask for a lighter, less performant system, but that too will come with tradeoffs. Very doubtful it will have the power-aperture performance of a SAP class system. And the SAP uses it to mask the RCS of the Flanker and still go after opponent units.
John wrote:One of problems with Russian jammers is they generate so much power that it makes the platform itself a target. Do no want to derail this thread but we can take this to Flanker discussion thread if you want to talk more.
There is no need to take this discussion elsewhere and clutter up that thread, as you have made it clear in this sentence itself that you have completely misunderstood the topic and are making completely mistaken claims. Unfortunately, you are quoting, rather paraphrasing, a widely discredited and comical report by Reuben Johnson which has been confidently cited ad nauseam and lead to this mistaken assumption.
Whereas the world over, EW specialists are involved in extracting more and more power from their jamming systems. Do you know how powerful the systems on the Growler are? Do you think they make the F/A-18 E/F a target and should hence compromise on the power received at the aperture of the target system? In fact, they and every SPJ manufacturer are doing all they can, to both add high power & additional modes to their SPJs, because of the proliferation of high power FCRs. Something the Russians anticipated long back and were prepared for with the SAP-518 and the SAP-14.
Please understand the concepts involved - irrespective of the modes, there is a definite requirement for high power at the jamming end, which has only been increasing! The SPJs that would function against a MSA on a medium fighter can no longer fight against a F-15 class modern FCR. That's why SPJs have been getting more and more powerful. They aren't reducing their power output - on the contrary, they've been adding to it.
Take a look at the Tejas SPJ we had planned. And what we added on the MiG-29 and what we are planning for the Su-30. We aren't reducing the power output - in fact, we needed more so we spent a ton of resources and effort in achieving what the Russians achieved with their inhouse systems ages ago. Think as they do. They have a formation with a bunch of Flankers. Several carry SAP-518s. Several don't. The ones that do are going to go after the opponents, while the other's retain the freedom to maneuver without any performance trade-offs. Otherwise, you accept the EW side performance trade-off that still allows your opponent significant leeway and you tailor your tactics accordingly. That's your choice to make.
It is this constant hunger for power and electrical complexity which is what makes stealth such a KISS approach to warfighting. You reduce the need for power hungry SPJs by reducing the RCS of your own profile and hence no longer need to fight the opponent with a SPJ, and even if you do, you can make do with a smaller SPJ. But that only functions with significant aero compromises and stealth costs baked into the platform. No free lunches anywhere. Now the advent of higher power radars means the stealth fighters too need EW support, ergo the Growler.