Su-27SM vs F-2 (based on F-16)

Japan says 2 Russian fighters breached its airspace

Two Russian fighters violated Japanese airspace on Thursday, Japan’s Defense Ministry said, prompting Japan to scramble its own warplanes in what was reported to be the first such incident in five years.

The planes were detected off Hokkaido for just over a minute, shortly after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he wanted to find a “mutually acceptable solution” to a decades-old territorial row between the two.

Japan’s foreign ministry lodged a formal protest over what it said was an incursion by a pair of Russian Su-27 fighters. Four Japanese F-2 fighters were sent up to visually confirm the Russian planes, according to Kyodo news.

“Today, around 3 p.m., military fighters belonging to Russian Federation breached our nation’s airspace above territorial waters off Hokkaido’s Rishiri island,” the foreign ministry said.

If confirmed, it would be the first breach of Japanese airspace by Russia since February 2008, according to Japanese media reports.

However, Moscow denied any incursion had taken place, in a statement by the spokesman for the military command’s eastern district, Roman Martov, given to Russian news agencies.

“Flights by the air force of the Pacific Fleet take place regularly in this region, in strict adherence to the international rules, without violation of state borders,” it said.

The incident came hours after Abe—who swept to power in December with pledges to get tough on diplomacy—offered apparently conciliatory comments toward Moscow over the Russian-administered Southern Kurils, known as the Northern Territories in Japan.

Abe’s tone was in marked contrast to his uncompromising stance on a dispute with Beijing over the sovereignty of a different set of disputed islands.

“There is no change in my resolve to do everything I can towards sealing a peace treaty with Russia after resolving the issue of the Northern Territories,” Abe said.

In December, Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to restart talks on signing a peace treaty formally ending the hostilities of World War II that has been stymied by the dispute.

“In the telephone talks, I told President Putin I would make efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution so as to ultimately solve the issue of the Northern Territories,” Abe told a government-backed rally of around 2,000 former islanders and their descendants in Tokyo.

Soviet forces seized the isles, which stretch out into rich fishing waters off the northern coast of Hokkaido, in the dying days of WWII and drove out Japanese residents.

The islands were later re-populated by Russians but remain a poor and undeveloped part of the country.

© 2013 AFP

Back to topic, I think that the Su-27SM will win over F2 if there is a small-scale clashes.
They are faster, more maneuverable, better qualified pilots Russia, Russia's weapons better with R73M2 fitted hat display HMS.
I set the battle for two Dogfight mode and WVR. For BVR, we do not know much about rcs of F2 and AESA radar (J/APG-1) manufactured by Japan so I say that F2 is very little chance of winning before the Su-27SM

First of all I would say that unless one of the aircraft involved are actually stealth aircraft then RCS does not really come into it.

Both aircraft should be able to detect each other at far greater distances than either could fire a weapon and that is via radar or ESM equipment detecting the radar of the other aircraft.

The issue here regarding airspace is that Japan claims territory that is not internationally recognised and certainly not recognised by Russia.

Note the article mentioned the Japanese Northern Territories. The problem is that Russia calls those Islands the Kurille Islands and has possession of all the islands in that group so for Japan to claim any ownership of the airspace occupied by Russia is just silly.

GarryB wrote:First of all I would say that unless one of the aircraft involved are actually stealth aircraft then RCS does not really come into it.

Both aircraft should be able to detect each other at far greater distances than either could fire a weapon and that is via radar or ESM equipment detecting the radar of the other aircraft.

The issue here regarding airspace is that Japan claims territory that is not internationally recognised and certainly not recognised by Russia.

Note the article mentioned the Japanese Northern Territories. The problem is that Russia calls those Islands the Kurille Islands and has possession of all the islands in that group so for Japan to claim any ownership of the airspace occupied by Russia is just silly.

ESM equipment?I think you mean the ECM equipment?

Because as I know, the RCS of the Su-27 family is often very large (about 10m2, but the version of the Su-30MKI, Su-34, Su-35 or J-11B has been reduced to less than 3m2 RCS by painting RAM. Even the Russians applied RAM for A2A missile). However F16 family is a family of very small class aircraft RCS.



Also F2 to use a AESA radar (advantage of continuous-wave changes, RWR from Su-27SM can not find) little information the Japanese-made​​, while Su-27SM according to what I know onlyPESA radar (PESA radar advantage is range scan farther than AESA radar but can not change the band).

su27sm should have n001v or n001vp radar. So, a slotted mechanically steered array with modernized backend electronics, compared to original n001 radar.

the fact f2 uses aesa radar shouldn't make it immune to detection of its emission. that depends on the technology level of the rwr suite on the su27sm. I would imagine rwr was also updated from the equipment su27 had in the 80s.

And pesa array gives out shorter working range than aesa, for the same input power. Pesa works with inherently higher interferrence and lower efficiency. That doesn't mean, of course, that pesa radars have shorter practical range. Given enough input power, it can perform just as well to the practical horizon limit.

eridan wrote:su27sm should have n001v or n001vp radar. So, a slotted mechanically steered array with modernized backend electronics, compared to original n001 radar.

the fact f2 uses aesa radar shouldn't make it immune to detection of its emission. that depends on the technology level of the rwr suite on the su27sm. I would imagine rwr was also updated from the equipment su27 had in the 80s.

And pesa array gives out shorter working range than aesa, for the same input power. Pesa works with inherently higher interferrence and lower efficiency. That doesn't mean, of course, that pesa radars have shorter practical range. Given enough input power, it can perform just as well to the practical horizon limit.

You are somewhat confused, PESA has a long wave frequency than with AESA please see Irbis-E (Su-35)

AESA is a radar LPI measures against RWR, I have not seen any RWR able to detect AESA radar!

Therefore, Japan, like the United States and their NATO allies need AWACS. And Russian Indian Flanker use as a mini AWAC, such as Su-30MKI, they still retain the version used PESA rather than replace the entire Su-30MKI with the AESA

This is the advantage of the two sides (Su-27SM and F-2)

Conventional aircraft return much larger signatures. ECM is limited by the power of the airborne jammer. Therefore, a smaller aircraft RCS is easier to cloak because it requires less power from the jammer. An aircraft that reduces its front-aspect signature by a factor of 10 cuts the notional detection range by 44 percent. The power required in the ECM jammer also decreases in proportion. For the same amount of power, ECM can jam more effectively.

airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1999/February%201999/0299radar.aspx

my example:

Radar Zaslon-M with detection range of 400 km with a target of RCS = 20 m2, so the F-18E / F with RCS = 0.1m2 (Of course this is only the estimated parameters, smaller than 200 cuts the 20 m2)
F-18 will be detected at a distance: 400 * (0.56 ^ 2) = 125.44 km (This means that the remaining 56%)

No way the F-18 has that RCS clean, let alone with warload.

Maybe from one specific angle that is irrelevant to actual air combat, but overall? No way.

TR1 wrote:No way the F-18 has that RCS clean, let alone with warload.

Maybe from one specific angle that is irrelevant to actual air combat, but overall? No way.

I only examples and by inference I hope you understand. I find it wrong a lot

ESM equipment?I think you mean the ECM equipment?

I meant ESM, Electronic Support Measures (equipment)... sensors like RHAWs and MAWs that detect enemy radar and radio emissions and can determine the threat based on the frequencies used and directions the signals come from.

ECM includes the same equipment but is used for jamming or blocking such signals, whereas ESM uses the information to determine where the enemy is.

Because as I know, the RCS of the Su-27 family is often very large (about 10m2, but the version of the Su-30MKI, Su-34, Su-35 or J-11B has been reduced to less than 3m2 RCS by painting RAM. Even the Russians applied RAM for A2A missile). However F16 family is a family of very small class aircraft RCS.

Well lets get some basics straight first... RCS actually has little to do with physical size and is not as intuitive as many amateurs seems to think (and I include myself amongst that list of amateurs).

If you get a flat sheet of steel that is 1m by 1m and hold it at 90 degrees to a radar antenna the RCS is not 1m squared.

This is because the sheet is capturing a large area of signal and reflecting it directly back at an antenna designed to gather the signal after it has scattered off an odd shaped object.

Simply by rotating that sheet of steel 45 degrees the RCS plummets thousands of times to a much smaller figure.

The physical size of the F-16 does not give it a small RCS, its shaping does that, but then the Su-27 also has very good shaping in that regard as they are both very sleek aerodynamic aircraft. The biggest issue with RCS is corner reflectors... hotspots that magnify and reflect radar signal back in the direction it came from.

First you fix the hotspots and then you apply RAM to the areas that give the biggest return and you can greatly reduce RCS, but once you have done that you can't do much more without completely redesigning the aircraft from scratch.

Also F2 to use a AESA radar (advantage of continuous-wave changes, RWR from Su-27SM can not find) little information the Japanese-made​​, while Su-27SM according to what I know onlyPESA radar (PESA radar advantage is range scan farther than AESA radar but can not change the band).

A PESA can do most things an AESA can do... the radar signals from PESA and AESA radars do not occur naturally so the detection of any such signal will alert the aircraft to the existence of its counterpart. A broad band scanning radar can be detected and IDd using a broad band ESM/ECM suite.

Also be aware that the Su-27s will be operating with ground radar support over friendly territory... it is also peace time so the Su-27 scanning the airspace and finding the F-2 would not be a risk or an act of war. In a conflict one Su-27 could scan for targets and pass target data to other aircraft and ground platforms in the area.

You are somewhat confused, PESA has a long wave frequency than with AESA please see Irbis-E (Su-35)

PESA uses a single transmit receive module, but it can operate in different frequencies just as any AESA TR module can, the difference is that an AESA array has thousands of transmitters/receivers that can shape the beams they are sending to optimise the signal for the best performance. In fact the upper half of the elements can concentrate on scanning for aerial targets and the lower half can scan for ground targets at the same time with a scan rate of miliseconds, which means high data update rate.

PESA radars also have electronic scanning and can perform many tricks, but in this case with two nonstealthy aircraft... the plane with the longest range and fastest missiles is the one that has the advantage... and that, currently is difficult to tell depending on what model missiles each aircraft is using.

AESA is a radar LPI measures against RWR, I have not seen any RWR able to detect AESA radar!

Therefore, Japan, like the United States and their NATO allies need AWACS. And Russian Indian Flanker use as a mini AWAC, such as Su-30MKI, they still retain the version used PESA rather than replace the entire Su-30MKI with the AESA

Low probability Intercept radar is a neat idea... a bit like frequency hopping radio communications so that anyone monitoring a frequency will only get fragments of the signal. The problem is that a broad band receiver can get all the signal and a computer can piece the signal together fairly rapidly if it is programmed well... the point is that an old RHAWs would be fooled but a modern system would be looking for such signals... which don't occur naturally. I rather suspect LPI will only be effective against third world countries.

NATO needs AWACS just like everyone does... it is handy to get a wide picture of the airspace you are working in. AESA radars are new and eventually everyone will use them including India and Russia and China... when they become affordable.

Radar Zaslon-M with detection range of 400 km with a target of RCS = 20 m2, so the F-18E / F with RCS = 0.1m2 (Of course this is only the estimated parameters, smaller than 200 cuts the 20 m2)
F-18 will be detected at a distance: 400 * (0.56 ^ 2) = 125.44 km (This means that the remaining 56%)

The F-18 does not have a RCS 200 times smaller than 20m2.

With a decent processor and electronics behind it the Zaslon-M could probably detect and track a 5m2 target at 400km.

indochina wrote:

TR1 wrote:No way the F-18 has that RCS clean, let alone with warload.

Maybe from one specific angle that is irrelevant to actual air combat, but overall? No way.

I only examples and by inference I hope you understand. I find it wrong a lot

Yes of course, I did not mean to imply you believed that figure

This is the Su-27SM?or any other version?

GarryB wrote:

ESM equipment?I think you mean the ECM equipment?

I meant ESM, Electronic Support Measures (equipment)... sensors like RHAWs and MAWs that detect enemy radar and radio emissions and can determine the threat based on the frequencies used and directions the signals come from.

ECM includes the same equipment but is used for jamming or blocking such signals, whereas ESM uses the information to determine where the enemy is.

Because as I know, the RCS of the Su-27 family is often very large (about 10m2, but the version of the Su-30MKI, Su-34, Su-35 or J-11B has been reduced to less than 3m2 RCS by painting RAM. Even the Russians applied RAM for A2A missile). However F16 family is a family of very small class aircraft RCS.

Well lets get some basics straight first... RCS actually has little to do with physical size and is not as intuitive as many amateurs seems to think (and I include myself amongst that list of amateurs).

If you get a flat sheet of steel that is 1m by 1m and hold it at 90 degrees to a radar antenna the RCS is not 1m squared.

This is because the sheet is capturing a large area of signal and reflecting it directly back at an antenna designed to gather the signal after it has scattered off an odd shaped object.

Simply by rotating that sheet of steel 45 degrees the RCS plummets thousands of times to a much smaller figure.

The physical size of the F-16 does not give it a small RCS, its shaping does that, but then the Su-27 also has very good shaping in that regard as they are both very sleek aerodynamic aircraft. The biggest issue with RCS is corner reflectors... hotspots that magnify and reflect radar signal back in the direction it came from.

First you fix the hotspots and then you apply RAM to the areas that give the biggest return and you can greatly reduce RCS, but once you have done that you can't do much more without completely redesigning the aircraft from scratch.

Also F2 to use a AESA radar (advantage of continuous-wave changes, RWR from Su-27SM can not find) little information the Japanese-made​​, while Su-27SM according to what I know onlyPESA radar (PESA radar advantage is range scan farther than AESA radar but can not change the band).

A PESA can do most things an AESA can do... the radar signals from PESA and AESA radars do not occur naturally so the detection of any such signal will alert the aircraft to the existence of its counterpart. A broad band scanning radar can be detected and IDd using a broad band ESM/ECM suite.

Also be aware that the Su-27s will be operating with ground radar support over friendly territory... it is also peace time so the Su-27 scanning the airspace and finding the F-2 would not be a risk or an act of war. In a conflict one Su-27 could scan for targets and pass target data to other aircraft and ground platforms in the area.

You are somewhat confused, PESA has a long wave frequency than with AESA please see Irbis-E (Su-35)

PESA uses a single transmit receive module, but it can operate in different frequencies just as any AESA TR module can, the difference is that an AESA array has thousands of transmitters/receivers that can shape the beams they are sending to optimise the signal for the best performance. In fact the upper half of the elements can concentrate on scanning for aerial targets and the lower half can scan for ground targets at the same time with a scan rate of miliseconds, which means high data update rate.

PESA radars also have electronic scanning and can perform many tricks, but in this case with two nonstealthy aircraft... the plane with the longest range and fastest missiles is the one that has the advantage... and that, currently is difficult to tell depending on what model missiles each aircraft is using.

AESA is a radar LPI measures against RWR, I have not seen any RWR able to detect AESA radar!

Therefore, Japan, like the United States and their NATO allies need AWACS. And Russian Indian Flanker use as a mini AWAC, such as Su-30MKI, they still retain the version used PESA rather than replace the entire Su-30MKI with the AESA

Low probability Intercept radar is a neat idea... a bit like frequency hopping radio communications so that anyone monitoring a frequency will only get fragments of the signal. The problem is that a broad band receiver can get all the signal and a computer can piece the signal together fairly rapidly if it is programmed well... the point is that an old RHAWs would be fooled but a modern system would be looking for such signals... which don't occur naturally. I rather suspect LPI will only be effective against third world countries.

NATO needs AWACS just like everyone does... it is handy to get a wide picture of the airspace you are working in. AESA radars are new and eventually everyone will use them including India and Russia and China... when they become affordable.

Radar Zaslon-M with detection range of 400 km with a target of RCS = 20 m2, so the F-18E / F with RCS = 0.1m2 (Of course this is only the estimated parameters, smaller than 200 cuts the 20 m2)
F-18 will be detected at a distance: 400 * (0.56 ^ 2) = 125.44 km (This means that the remaining 56%)

The F-18 does not have a RCS 200 times smaller than 20m2.

With a decent processor and electronics behind it the Zaslon-M could probably detect and track a 5m2 target at 400km.

Thank for your comment, I understand my mistakes so your answer for this comparison (between Su-27SM and F-2) will be the winner of the Su-27SM

Su-27SM does not use a PESA radar. It's un upgrade of the N001. The F-2 has a clear advantage in this area.

Thank for your comment, I understand my mistakes so your answer for this comparison (between Su-27SM and F-2) will be the winner of the Su-27SM

It is not that simple.

Give a man an assault rifle and another man a 2.5km range heavy calibre sniper rifle and on paper the man with the assault rifle should lose every time.

That is the problem with paper comparisons because it doesn't take into account the real world.

An Su-27SM and an F-2 will never operate alone or in a vacuum, tactics, decisions made, level of training, objectives and orders will all have an effect.

For instance the Flanker pilot might have orders to only engage WVR and to positively identify the target as hostile before being cleared to fire.

The F-2 might be on a mission of provocation to try to get the Russian aircraft to open fire first so he can fire back with some legitimacy.

etc
etc


Another factor of course is that the Flanker will be operating under an umbrella that includes at least one S-400 battery.

Despite Japanese claims the territory the Flanker will be operating will be harsh but Russian friendly as the locals will be Russian.

a89 wrote:Su-27SM does not use a PESA radar. It's un upgrade of the N001. The F-2 has a clear advantage in this area.

Su-27SM with ECM the F-2 is not, AAM-4B rocket their nearly AIM-120 with low BVR rate of only 40%

We do not know F-2 radar scan angle and range.Including radar of the Su-27SM, but I think that if the right as you mentioned the Russian Su-27SM uses PESA radar will have a clear advantage, F-2 is not a stealth aircraft