Singhaji
Belongs more to the Su-30 thread, but have attempted to reply here itself..
weight for weight, size for size US/Europe have had better radars and smarter weapons for decades
rdy2/apg63/apg73/ps05 vs the clunky sets like kopyo, zhuk on mig29 etc. Rus lacking the miniaturization and electronics made an attempt to overcome this using brute force approach of larger apertures. well when the west scaled up the aperture they are still way ahead as the apg77 and apg79 show (and hopefully the rbe2 aesa an captor-E mashallah)
I'd disagree here because its just a case of differing priorities. The Russians are smart engineers and probably amongst the best (if not the best) at applied engineering, apart from theoretical concepts and R&D, where they excelled at as well. Most (not all though) "clunky sets" actually worked well within their limitations and for what they were intended for. The Russians just did things "differently" since they had conscript crew & wanted to keep technology functionally maintained at differing bases with more spartan infra (and hence more rugged) and also because they relied more on large numbers of specialized craft for special purposes. The west, thanks to a bunch of reasons went more and more for the multifunctional approach, which by default meant more and more reliance on technology.
Consider the N001 radar on the Su-27. It did not meet the technology specifications set for it by the Russians themselves but boy, did it work. Even as recently as Cope India, this generations old set was holding its own in Air to Air against APG-63s on US F-15s. Here is a typical example of how Russians did things differently. When you look at the range on the N001 it appears just about "ok" for a large radar, some 100 km against a 3 Sq Mtr target. But then when you compare modes, its actually in default TWS setting. With an onboard datalink supplying info from the ground based radars, the Su-27 pilot knows where the target is, picks him up at maximum range at TWS, the radar autoprioritizes based on speed/direction, the pilot then switches to lock on (without losing track) and fires away.Later for their own upgrade, did the Russians ditch this "antique" set, no, they just added separate processing and added the additional VS/RWS modes, and the range etc went up by a significant amount, also added ground mapping modes and dual target engagement with RVV-AE. The US would have just junked the sets. The APG-63 went for more multifunctional modes & what not. The Russians aimed to use the Su-27 for air to air, working within a specific system, and kept things simple. Even when not operating within that system, the System worked and worked well.
Now, the MiG-29, equipped with but the same radar design, but far less spent on the weapons control system, hence the pilot would lose TWS moment he went to STT and so on, but the Russians put a helpful datalink to compensate. But compared to the Su-27s' functional utilitarian cockpit, the MiG-29 is more of an anachronism, but then again, what was its role? Short range battlefield airsuperiority. Even came up with a perfectly functional HMCS with R-73E, that decades later, without update can still spook the best western fighters. Again, upgraded over the years and made more functional. The Malaysian MiG-29s were fairly nifty.
Then see the MiG-31, created to police the far frontiers against US bombers and the Tomahawk. See videos on youtube, it even has color CRT displays, money clearly was no issue!! A functional PESA, datalinked to other fighters so that four fighters flying in a "wall" can see hundreds of km wide, pick up targets against clutter and attack them with amongst the longest ranged BVR missiles in the world, near simultaneously. And it even has a retractable IRST. And a WSO. This packed into a modified MiG-25 airframe, modified so much that in practical terms it is all but a new aircraft, and even when equipped with very thirsty, monster engines, still has enough fuel for long range! So simply put, different solutions for different needs. Cut to today, the USAF is equipping F-15s with AESA & AMRAAMs to deter cruise missiles. Their "technique", fly a "wall" with "datalinks".
Another thing about the Russians, the incredible standardization. A pilot goes from one MiG to the other, the displays, the controls are mostly in the same places, he adopts very quickly. Spares can be swapped, maintenance crew gets upto speed quick, EMI/EMC tolerance is high making for equipment able to tolerate higher production variances. Now, decades later, look at the IAF, using the same HUD, MFDs etc across Su-30, Jaguar, MiG upgrades, standardizing on common fits wherever possible.
You noted the RBE-2 & RDY-2 - but both IMO don't hold a torch to the Bars on the MKI in actual performance. For all practical purposes, the Bars is a perfect example of the Russians performance at all costs, paradigm. They didn't have access to Tx/Rx chips which could do both functions, so they designed the best PESA - one with its Rx path similar to an AESA with Rx sticks (and hence low noise), and a fairly large aperture coupled to a high power TWT. And they put it in a fighter which could handle the weight. The Bars was in a training mode at Red Flag in 2008, in a heavy EW environment - but they still couldnt jam it, and on several days, it racked up heavy BVR scores. What does that say for the overall performance of the radar.
The Russians only lagged in multifunctional modes - but today, they are pretty much there, look at the Bars itself or even the Irbis. They adopt modern programming languages, not their old Russian style hardware specific languages. We are adopting non Russian weapons to the Bars. We have integrated Litening to the WCS as well, not to mention third party SAR pods.
The ZhukM2 the IAF is getting has, VS,RWS,TWS,RA,CCM - all A2A modes and A2G modes including SAR. They are reportedly now getting to 1m*1m maps if my memory is right. 3M*3M was better than what the Israelis originally had. The Irbis, the latest PESA uses the same technology for A2G mapping as that of the APG-80 for high resolution mapping. Today, with no cold war, foundry tech available to the Russians, and with their own foundries, am decently certain their NIIP AESA will be a performer.
in weapons the scene is even worse - just compare the stuff like harpoon/apache/kepd/j-series to the stuff like kh59 - no stealth, needs a separate data link pod hanging out.
The Russians have several systems in the works or already in trials, for the PAK-FA and future programs. They now have the Kh-35 variants for long range strikes, plus a new tactical series of Kh-38s. Theres a satellite guided bomb as well.
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/
Again, its all about priority. The Russians have a lot of tactical MLRS and even BMs, cruise missiles & long range Apache style stuff has just not been up their creek for a while. Remember after the collapse, they had to prioritize their spending. So they concentrated on their strategic programs for deterrence & left out the funding for expeditionary stuff. But they remain world class in several areas. Take a look at the Kh-31PD - nothing like it in the Europeans kitty for now. Latest variant has 200 km+ range, and multi band seeker. For Antiship work they have Kh-31s, Kh-59 variants and even Kh-35s. The RVV-AE just got updated to a new variant as well.
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/
About the only area where they are lagging in, is the presence of a game changing A2A missile like the Meteor, or the NG multimpurpose missile the US is working on - otherwise, they have been updating their stuff.
in sensor fusion and LPI we know the west is much ahead.
Or is it that we know about the western efforts more because we understand what they write & publicize. The Su-35 has sensor fusion as well, but its been very less reported. The designers note every target is crosschecked and assigned a unique ID - they call it a "passport" which then appears on one of the two huge displays as one. Similarly, Russian PESAs per public info have had LPI attributes for a while - fast beamsteering, low sidelobes, plus specific modes as well. Given the rapid manner in which NIIP has progressed and the amount of effort Sukhoi have gone to for airframe shaping for stealth in the PAK-FA, its a given the NIIP radar will have LPI. At least a couple of the knowledgeable Russian posters who report on the PAKFA have also reported to that effect. It'll be interesting to see what all the Su-30 MKI upgrade includes, we have advanced by leaps and bounds and so have the Russians.
likewise the geophysika sapsan pod is not a export competitor to sniper XR/damocles/litening. same for opto - electronic and SAR payloads incl in UAV and planes.
Yes, this is one area where they are lagging, because they havent invested enough in mass manufacturing high end opto-electronic thermal arrays and even R&D. Even so, when it comes to the basics of design, software & integration, they are fairly capable, because of obvious reasons though, they wont be sold the IR/IIR detectors from the leading foundries in the west, so they have to go for the complete packages.
and that is what WORRIES me about the whole Pakfa thing. I have NO DOUBT in airframe they will do a great job. the AL41 will be a good engine (though not the F135/F136). NIIP tikhomirov would likely make a pretty good new radar. but in terms of all the bits and pieces of sensor fusion and avionics and next-gen weapons the picture looks cloudish to me. I do not see Rus working on the kind of weapons that make a difference like AASM or J-series. rumours of next gen AAMs have remained so - so far. they still seem to prefer brute force and size in weapons over slim, smart and stealthy. they still cannot match the williams intl turbofans or the tiny IIR seekers now proliferating in western systems.
I'd say the FGFA will be every bit as capable as its western peers. Only in a handful of things would we need to put in anything non Russian/Indian, and even there, it'll probably be for logistic or some leading edge sort of stuff.
in the end I hope we do not end up with another nuova MKI - a good airframe and platform but lagging in terms of radar,avionics, network integration and smart weapons vs its closest peer the F-15E.
If you compare the MKI with its closest Strike eagle of the same generation, the F-15K - the MKI actually comes out ahead in terms of most parameters. About the only advantage the Strike Eagles have are GPS guided bombs and the SLAM-ER, even here, we have programs underway (w/Glonass/own efforts) and the SLAM-ER, well we have the Kh-59ME, the Brahmos is planned for and so is the Nirbhay. The network integration part is also not that bad, current MKIs can network upto 16 targets with each other, assign targets & prosecute, all the while sharing radar data etc. The ODL, to be integrated onto all IAF aircraft is even more sophisticated and is linked to the IACCS (seven nodes already funded, a few up and running per reports). The Upgrade will bring new avionics including AESA from 2016 onwards. About the only thing good for a future upgrade, is more thrust but then again - that cuts into fuel, and at typical operating loads, the MKI has a decent TWR. US estimates of the MKI released as JSF briefings show pretty decent performance all around even kinematically.
we are putting a shitload of $$ into pakfa. I hope we obtain written guarantees that Ru and MRCA vendors will work together to put western and indian/israeli weapons on the PAKFA too.
We are doing that for the MKI anyhow..so it'll certainly be done for the PAKFA.
