Su-30 for Russian Air Force

Which now brings me to another question: why don't they bother adding L band elements to all their Radar now? It would be ideal when scanning with L band in order to look for "stealthy" targets then use the xband for tracking? I mean, the technology has been used plenty before.

I've read you need a big antenna for L band and other lower freuency. Those 70-100 cm antennas on fighters are jst too small to be used for L band radars. What they could and should do is introduce new smaller AWACS with L band radar and put them also on all their new ships.

US says their new AWACS working in L band can guide missiles. Actually they said that when Russia and China introduced their 5 generation fighters so its probably a lie for their domestic public (f-16.net).

So it's quite bad for the Flanker here. A simple C7 can handle a Flanker in double that range. The delta, three times that.

Really?

AMRAAM has a PK of 40% against targets that were unaware they were under attack... I would expect something like a 5% PK against aware targets with modern ESM systems like the Flanker.

That means after 6 shots the F-22 is armed with a cannon... sounds like the Flanker is in there... new generation AAMs for the PAK FA look rather interesting to me... what has western fighters got? Improved AMRAAM... big deal.

Guys in case of war F-22 and Su-30 will not be going after each other because they will be tasked with set of targets completely different than each other...

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys in case of war F-22 and Su-30 will not be going after each other because they will be tasked with set of targets completely different than each other...

First and foremost they will both be tasked with air superiority, and thus will encounter each other.

I would imagine that the assignment of bombing missions to multi-role fighters is a luxury reserved largely for when the airspace in the sector has already been secured, or for when you're attacking a 3rd world country that doesn't have much of an airforce.

In case of war, the aircraft that will prevail is the one that still has an airstrip to take off and land.

The rest is semantics.

KiloGolf wrote:

medo wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

medo wrote:I think there was one interesting info, which went through practicaly unnoticed. It was an info, that in 15th Oktober 2015 Su-30SM detect F-22 at range more than 40 km and that soon after that F-22s in Incirlik base were replaced by F-15C fighters. This is interesting as this was not in some exercise, where F-22 use additional devices to increase RCS and radar work in training mode, but in real combat zone, where F-22 fly in full stealth mode and with radar in combat mode. For sure Su-30SM record radar caracteristics with L-150 Pastel, which is also ELINT complex and not only a RWR. More important is, that they record real F-22 stealth caracteristics.

Why this is interesting? Because RCS of F-35 is claimed to be around 0,005 m2 and RCS of F-22 is around 0,0001 m2.



If we look at this graph published by Carlo Kopp from Ausairpower years ago, we could see, that N011M Bars-M radar should detect F-22 at range less than 10 km. This small RCS is for frontal aspect. If it detect it from the side and RCS is 100 times bigger, than it is still 0,01 m2 and Bars-M radar should detect it at little more than 20 km range. Bars-M radar have 40 km range for RCS 0,1 m2, what is 1000 times bigger than F-22 frontal RCS.

Now we could assume, that Bars-R radar in Su-30SM is far better than export Bars-M, or F-22 is not that stealth as it is claimed to be or both.

THe one of RCS was dismounted years ago: published valors were thebest ones  i.e the ones at optimal angle of incidence of the radar waves, given that in an air to air engagement this angle is continously changing changhing such angles never remain stable.

[1] Radar Parameters

Radar Cross Sections cited (X-band):
F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2;
PAK-FA All Aspect = 0.01 m2;
Su-35-1 Front Aspect= 2 m2.

Quoted from Carlo Kopp

No, all aspect RCS of F-22 have to be between 0,01 m2 and 0,001 m2. Su-30SM theoretically MUST NOT detect F-22 at longer range than 20 km at its best. But Su-30SM detect it at range more than 40 km in combat zone in Syria, where F-22 operate in full stealth, what makes F-22 RCS 0,1 m2, what is 10 to 100 times bigger RCS as it should be. Now this could mean that Bars-R is far more powerful than export Bars-M or that F-22 and F-35 are not that stealth as they are claimed to be.

Well 40km is nothing to brag about though. Su-30SM is being inducted right now, in 2017.
The last F-22A was delivered more than half a decade ago (late 2011).

So it's quite bad for the Flanker here. A simple C7 can handle a Flanker in double that range. The delta, three times that.
APG-77(V)1 can deal with them from more 100 km afar.

I don't think Su-30SM is so toothless here. radar is not the only option here. If F-22 want to see Su-30SM for 200 or 300 km away, he must transmit high power signals to it, that receivers will detect returning signal. PESA or AESA doesn't make a difference. Working with high power concentrated beam for long range searching means Su-30SM will detect F-22 with its L-150 Pastel ELINT at few 100 km away. Don't forget, that newer Pastel could program anti-radar missiles and air to air missiles as well. So this could be the first surprise, that Su-30SM or Su-34 could send anti-radar or passive AA missile against F-22. Su-30SM could detect F-22 with IRST in decent distance and send long range IR AAM like R-27ET. Don't forget, that Su-30SM is also fully networked and could work passively with IRST and Pastel searching for targets. Up to now, US launched AMRAAMs only against targets which didn't have ECM equippment and have old RWRs and even in that case they didn't always hit the target as missile evading maneuver works well against them. Su-30SM is getting the newest SAP-518SM ECM pods and we do not know yet, how effective they are against AMRAAMs, but they are designed to protect against AMRAAMs, Meteors, etc. We see in Syria, that old Russian flares in Syrian Su-22 work well against AIM-9X AAM, but Su-30SM have newer bigger ones. At the end, there is a good possibility, that F-22 and Su-30SM have a duel with guns and Su-30SM with TVC is quite equal

That was the other thing I was going to mention. Is that if both sides are going to go without using their own radar, then they both would rely on something like IRST. Once F-22 uses its radar, it will be picked up by passive sensors on the Su-30. If Su-30 uses its radar, it will be picked up by the passive sensors on the F-22. As mentioned before, AESA radar while it has its benefits, it has its drawbacks. On average, 10% of the AESA modules fail (this is by director of the Zhuk radars who studies all type of radars and I have read this in western publication as well) and while they are rated at 15W or 16W, they rarely operate at that power due to cooling issues and overall damages the electronics. Only for real situations that may call for it. But all in all, they may detect something as large as an Su-30SM at roughly 200 - 250km, which of course is greater range than the Bars-R could detect the stealth fighter at. But as you said, once the F-22 or F-35 does use its radar, then the Su-30SM will detect it. What would give the trump card to the F-22 or F-35 is if it is operating with various other jets that would be using their radars to detect the Su-30SM and passing off the information to the F-22's and F-35's. Of course, once that happens, other aircrafts from Russia's end will be used.

that is why Stealth isn't as much as an emphasis anymore than it once was back in the 80's and 90's. Because new methods of detecting stealth is being used, and well, it is expensive as all hell too.

But if what is said about the L-Band AESA elements used on the Su-57 are true (small antenna for IFF and larger antena for scanning the skies), then they are using UHF based tech for their jets to really put a stomp on low observable targets. But this was inevitable. I am far more surprised that this technology isn't being pushed on older jets to really give them a boost in fighting stealth. Su-30SM and even older Su-27's could very well use this technology.

miketheterrible wrote:That was the other thing I was going to mention.  Is that if both sides are going to go without using their own radar, then they both would rely on something like IRST.  Once F-22 uses its radar, it will be picked up by passive sensors on the Su-30.  If Su-30 uses its radar, it will be picked up by the passive sensors on the F-22.  As mentioned before, AESA radar while it has its benefits, it has its drawbacks.  On average, 10% of the AESA modules fail (this is by director of the Zhuk radars who studies all type of radars and I have read this in western publication as well) and while they are rated at 15W or 16W, they rarely operate at that power due to cooling issues and overall damages the electronics.  Only for real situations that may call for it.  But all in all, they may detect something as large as an Su-30SM at roughly 200 - 250km, which of course is greater range than the Bars-R could detect the stealth fighter at.  But as you said, once the F-22 or F-35 does use its radar, then the Su-30SM will detect it.  What would give the trump card to the F-22 or F-35 is if it is operating with various other jets that would be using their radars to detect the Su-30SM and passing off the information to the F-22's and F-35's.  Of course, once that happens, other aircrafts from Russia's end will be used.

that is why Stealth isn't as much as an emphasis anymore than it once was back in the 80's and 90's.  Because new methods of detecting stealth is being used, and well, it is expensive as all hell too.

But if what is said about the L-Band AESA elements used on the Su-57 are true (small antenna for IFF and larger antena for scanning the skies), then they are using UHF based tech for their jets to really put a stomp on low observable targets.  But this was inevitable.  I am far more surprised that this technology isn't being pushed on older jets to really give them a boost in fighting stealth.  Su-30SM and even older Su-27's could very well use this technology.

Or an F-22A from 200 km afar can switch on its radar, track and lock a Flanker, then datalink the data to Vipers or F-35s lurking at 80 or 100 km away, with all sensors switched off. Whatever the Flanker does vs. that F-22A will be irrelevant, as it will move away from anything the Flanker can throw at it.

LO is not a bad thing to have. USAF has the edge here.

The Su-30SM is useful to tackle 2nd tier NATO Air Forces or 3rd world countries. USAF in its entirety is in no way threatened by it, as it is basically an up-to-date Flanker and represents the same threat the Su-27 did in the late 90s and 00s. Nothing game changing as it was in the 80s or early 90s, just keeping up with the West in this decade.

It was always understood US claim of 0,0001 m^2 RCS for F-22 is pure fiction. Even if somehow miraculously they achieved such RCS in laboratory setting (they did not, but let's for fun imagine they did not outright fabricate that number) it would be impossible to maintain it in any kind of realistic scenario. RCS of an insect is typical quoted as being around 0,001, or an order of magnitude higher the claimed RCS of F-22, so if that plane collides with single insect during take-off it's RCS will increase by something like a factor of 10. Picking some dust during take-of, also forget abut claimed RCS. Some dirt footprints form pilot's boot when he climes on to plain , or maintenance personal leaves greasy fingerprinting or two on surface of F-22, again your RCS of 0,0001 goes back to la la land where it came form.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:That was the other thing I was going to mention.  Is that if both sides are going to go without using their own radar, then they both would rely on something like IRST.  Once F-22 uses its radar, it will be picked up by passive sensors on the Su-30.  If Su-30 uses its radar, it will be picked up by the passive sensors on the F-22.  As mentioned before, AESA radar while it has its benefits, it has its drawbacks.  On average, 10% of the AESA modules fail (this is by director of the Zhuk radars who studies all type of radars and I have read this in western publication as well) and while they are rated at 15W or 16W, they rarely operate at that power due to cooling issues and overall damages the electronics.  Only for real situations that may call for it.  But all in all, they may detect something as large as an Su-30SM at roughly 200 - 250km, which of course is greater range than the Bars-R could detect the stealth fighter at.  But as you said, once the F-22 or F-35 does use its radar, then the Su-30SM will detect it.  What would give the trump card to the F-22 or F-35 is if it is operating with various other jets that would be using their radars to detect the Su-30SM and passing off the information to the F-22's and F-35's.  Of course, once that happens, other aircrafts from Russia's end will be used.

that is why Stealth isn't as much as an emphasis anymore than it once was back in the 80's and 90's.  Because new methods of detecting stealth is being used, and well, it is expensive as all hell too.

But if what is said about the L-Band AESA elements used on the Su-57 are true (small antenna for IFF and larger antena for scanning the skies), then they are using UHF based tech for their jets to really put a stomp on low observable targets.  But this was inevitable.  I am far more surprised that this technology isn't being pushed on older jets to really give them a boost in fighting stealth.  Su-30SM and even older Su-27's could very well use this technology.

Or an F-22A from 200 km afar can switch on its radar, track and lock a Flanker, then datalink the data to Vipers or F-35s lurking at 80 or 100 km away, with all sensors switched off. Whatever the Flanker does vs. that F-22A will be irrelevant, as it will move away from anything the Flanker can throw at it.

LO is not a bad thing to have. USAF has the edge here.

But by the time the information is sent, Su-30 will have picked up its location.  And if you think the Su-30 would be "alone" while the F-22 isn't, then you are only fooling yourself.  As one Russian general already said "we can put to test how "stealthy" your jets really are".  In other words, they are calling US bluff.  Seemed the US picked up on that after the fact that it started to use its F-15's instead as Medo pointed out.  Information picked up by Su-30 would have been valuable beyond measures anyway.

This is why Russia is shoving new passive systems on their jets. The IRST alone is extremely useful, especially when a jet like F-22 heats up while flying. Lights up like a Christmas tree.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:That was the other thing I was going to mention.  Is that if both sides are going to go without using their own radar, then they both would rely on something like IRST.  Once F-22 uses its radar, it will be picked up by passive sensors on the Su-30.  If Su-30 uses its radar, it will be picked up by the passive sensors on the F-22.  As mentioned before, AESA radar while it has its benefits, it has its drawbacks.  On average, 10% of the AESA modules fail (this is by director of the Zhuk radars who studies all type of radars and I have read this in western publication as well) and while they are rated at 15W or 16W, they rarely operate at that power due to cooling issues and overall damages the electronics.  Only for real situations that may call for it.  But all in all, they may detect something as large as an Su-30SM at roughly 200 - 250km, which of course is greater range than the Bars-R could detect the stealth fighter at.  But as you said, once the F-22 or F-35 does use its radar, then the Su-30SM will detect it.  What would give the trump card to the F-22 or F-35 is if it is operating with various other jets that would be using their radars to detect the Su-30SM and passing off the information to the F-22's and F-35's.  Of course, once that happens, other aircrafts from Russia's end will be used.

that is why Stealth isn't as much as an emphasis anymore than it once was back in the 80's and 90's.  Because new methods of detecting stealth is being used, and well, it is expensive as all hell too.

But if what is said about the L-Band AESA elements used on the Su-57 are true (small antenna for IFF and larger antena for scanning the skies), then they are using UHF based tech for their jets to really put a stomp on low observable targets.  But this was inevitable.  I am far more surprised that this technology isn't being pushed on older jets to really give them a boost in fighting stealth.  Su-30SM and even older Su-27's could very well use this technology.

Or an F-22A from 200 km afar can switch on its radar, track and lock a Flanker, then datalink the data to Vipers or F-35s lurking at 80 or 100 km away, with all sensors switched off. Whatever the Flanker does vs. that F-22A will be irrelevant, as it will move away from anything the Flanker can throw at it.

LO is not a bad thing to have. USAF has the edge here.

But by the time the information is sent, Su-30 will have picked up its location.  And if you think the Su-30 would be "alone" while the F-22 isn't, then you are only fooling yourself.  As one Russian general already said "we can put to test how "stealthy" your jets really are".  In other words, they are calling US bluff.  Seemed the US picked up on that after the fact that it started to use its F-15's instead as Medo pointed out.  Information picked up by Su-30 would have been valuable beyond measures anyway.

Well currently the F-22A can't use its Link16 like that, but it will so in future. F-35s  can though.
Picking up a LO aircraft at 150 or 200 km is as good at useless. They can try firing missiles against such a target, but it's a tough kill. Too far.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:That was the other thing I was going to mention.  Is that if both sides are going to go without using their own radar, then they both would rely on something like IRST.  Once F-22 uses its radar, it will be picked up by passive sensors on the Su-30.  If Su-30 uses its radar, it will be picked up by the passive sensors on the F-22.  As mentioned before, AESA radar while it has its benefits, it has its drawbacks.  On average, 10% of the AESA modules fail (this is by director of the Zhuk radars who studies all type of radars and I have read this in western publication as well) and while they are rated at 15W or 16W, they rarely operate at that power due to cooling issues and overall damages the electronics.  Only for real situations that may call for it.  But all in all, they may detect something as large as an Su-30SM at roughly 200 - 250km, which of course is greater range than the Bars-R could detect the stealth fighter at.  But as you said, once the F-22 or F-35 does use its radar, then the Su-30SM will detect it.  What would give the trump card to the F-22 or F-35 is if it is operating with various other jets that would be using their radars to detect the Su-30SM and passing off the information to the F-22's and F-35's.  Of course, once that happens, other aircrafts from Russia's end will be used.

that is why Stealth isn't as much as an emphasis anymore than it once was back in the 80's and 90's.  Because new methods of detecting stealth is being used, and well, it is expensive as all hell too.

But if what is said about the L-Band AESA elements used on the Su-57 are true (small antenna for IFF and larger antena for scanning the skies), then they are using UHF based tech for their jets to really put a stomp on low observable targets.  But this was inevitable.  I am far more surprised that this technology isn't being pushed on older jets to really give them a boost in fighting stealth.  Su-30SM and even older Su-27's could very well use this technology.

Or an F-22A from 200 km afar can switch on its radar, track and lock a Flanker, then datalink the data to Vipers or F-35s lurking at 80 or 100 km away, with all sensors switched off. Whatever the Flanker does vs. that F-22A will be irrelevant, as it will move away from anything the Flanker can throw at it.

LO is not a bad thing to have. USAF has the edge here.

But by the time the information is sent, Su-30 will have picked up its location.  And if you think the Su-30 would be "alone" while the F-22 isn't, then you are only fooling yourself.  As one Russian general already said "we can put to test how "stealthy" your jets really are".  In other words, they are calling US bluff.  Seemed the US picked up on that after the fact that it started to use its F-15's instead as Medo pointed out.  Information picked up by Su-30 would have been valuable beyond measures anyway.

Well currently the F-22A can't use its Link16 like that, but it will so in future. F-35s  can though.
Picking up a LO aircraft at 150 or 200 km is as good at useless. They can try firing missiles against such a target, but it's a tough kill.

And the same can be said about firing a missile against a target that is using heavy EW.  We can go back and fourth all day, but the "stealth" doctrine isn't shining so well anymore, hence why US is going back to the concept of Speed being important factor.  If you think you cannot pick up a target at 150 to 200 KM that is so called "stealth" but they do so using IRST and passive sensors, then you are only fooling yourself and not convincing anyone.  Medo already pointed that one out on how they can do so.

What proves you wrong, is the fact that the F-22 was picked up at greater ranges than they would have "proclaimed" needed.  And now, they have moved onto using their older jets.  I wonder why? Because the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Another great thing, is that as something is releasing any kind of signal, it is a form of radiation. It will be picked up.

May I bring your attention to the RQ-170 incident?

miketheterrible wrote:
And the same can be said about firing a missile against a target that is using heavy EW.  We can go back and fourth all day, but the "stealth" doctrine isn't shining so well anymore, hence why US is going back to the concept of Speed being important factor.  If you think you cannot pick up a target at 150 to 200 KM that is so called "stealth" but they do so using IRST and passive sensors, then you are only fooling yourself and not convincing anyone.  Medo already pointed that one out on how they can do so.

What proves you wrong, is the fact that the F-22 was picked up at greater ranges than they would have "proclaimed" needed.  And now, they have moved onto using their older jets.  I wonder why? Because the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

They can pickup an F-22 or an F-15 at 150 km afar, sure. But launching a missile (say an R-27, any model) at it is a very tough to impossible kill. It's as good as nothing, given the targeted plane will evade the missile by simply flying further away.

Meantime platforms within the Flanker threat zone can launch at it without even switching on their radar or IRST.

so my point is this:
LO brings game-changing potential in tactics implementation and flexibility, not performance per se.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:
And the same can be said about firing a missile against a target that is using heavy EW.  We can go back and fourth all day, but the "stealth" doctrine isn't shining so well anymore, hence why US is going back to the concept of Speed being important factor.  If you think you cannot pick up a target at 150 to 200 KM that is so called "stealth" but they do so using IRST and passive sensors, then you are only fooling yourself and not convincing anyone.  Medo already pointed that one out on how they can do so.

What proves you wrong, is the fact that the F-22 was picked up at greater ranges than they would have "proclaimed" needed.  And now, they have moved onto using their older jets.  I wonder why? Because the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

They can pickup an F-22 or an F-15 at 150 km afar, sure. But launching a missile at it is a very tough to impossible kill. It's as good as nothing, given the targeted plane will evade the missile by simply flying further away.

Meantime platforms within the Flanker threat zone can launch at it without even switching on their radar or IRST.

So you are saying they can launch without any means of targeting? No, that isn't how it works.  Never has either.  If an F-22 or F-35 decides to pick up the Su-30SM, it would be able to launch its missile at it due to its passive sensors picking it up.  Medo explained this already.  You assume that somehow the US weapon is some magic weapon that always hits on target at full range but somehow, the Russian one cant (especially if it would be using non radar based missile as Medo pointed out).  But lets be real here, that isn't how it would work.  As mentioned, see how great the Vunderweapon of the US worked against an old Su-22.

I mean, if they want to "blindly" fire their missiles at Su-30's or in "general direction" of it, that would also give their positions away. Add to that, these missiles would light up on the Sukhois EW/ECM/ECCM systems. Just like it would on the F-22 and F-35.

Christ almighty, this will go on forever.

miketheterrible wrote:So you are saying they can launch without any means of targeting? No, that isn't how it works.  Never has either.  If an F-22 or F-35 decides to pick up the Su-30SM, it would be able to launch its missile at it due to its passive sensors picking it up.

The planes within the Flanker's threat zone can.
The plane outside can't, sure, and will do what I posted above (re-read).

Switch on, illuminate, track, pass along targeting information via data-link. And f-off fast.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:So you are saying they can launch without any means of targeting? No, that isn't how it works.  Never has either.  If an F-22 or F-35 decides to pick up the Su-30SM, it would be able to launch its missile at it due to its passive sensors picking it up.

The planes within the Flanker's threat zone can.
The plane outside can't, sure, and will do what I posted above (re-read).

Switch on, illuminate, track, pass along targeting information via data-link. And f-off fast.

And then due to the fire off, positions already spotted.  Passive sensors on Sukhois will know where it is, especially from the "info" of were the radar signal was from.  Once those missiles are fired, then Russia will rely on its EW/ECM/ECCM systems and then information sent to all other assets in area to the general location.

You are boring me already though.  Medo made a point that you are ignoring for obvious reasons (maybe hurts your pride or something).  But reality is, these F-22's are not as stealthy as claimed, and if they acknowledge F-35 is significantly less stealthy than F-22, then that is even worst for them.

But whatever, you can continue to think the stealth is some sort of magic against physics

Point is: Uber Stealth plane ran off after spotted and calculations showing that their stealth isn't as stealthy as they claimed, and now using old jets. Guess they are scared now. Just like the THAAD not intercepting the NK missiles flying over japan. Or no attempt at all.

miketheterrible wrote:And then due to the fire off, positions already spotted.

Not necessarily. Missile Launch detection is also tough at distance over 30-40 km. And missile approach warning can be rectified if an AMRAAM is set not to illuminate in the first 10-20 km of flight. You see I think about these things with probability and complexity in mind, not brochures.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:And then due to the fire off, positions already spotted.

Not necessarily. Missile Launch detection is also tough at distance over 30-40 km.
You see I think about these things with probability and complexity in mind, not brochures.

Not based upon what sensors are used to spot the radars initial use.  Even if it is AWACS.  Hence why with said sensors, both (F-35) and Su-30 were regarded as mini awacs, wasn't just the radar.

If you do not want to read what the brochures said, then you shouldn't be selective.  Because the brochures from the F-35 and F-22 are clearly contrived then as well.

And missile approach warning can be rectified if an AMRAAM is set not to illuminate in the first 10-20 km of flight

Then if it has nothing to guide it initially, it is like "shooting in the dark". Something that was claimed "doesn't work" by some "professionals" of AD systems here proclaimed.

miketheterrible wrote:

And missile approach warning can be rectified if an AMRAAM is set not to illuminate in the first 10-20 km of flight

Then if it has nothing to guide it initially, it is like "shooting in the dark".  Something that was claimed "doesn't work" by some "professionals" of AD systems here proclaimed.

It has the lock data fed to it before launch via datalink, as I said. It's not a blind launch.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

And missile approach warning can be rectified if an AMRAAM is set not to illuminate in the first 10-20 km of flight

Then if it has nothing to guide it initially, it is like "shooting in the dark".  Something that was claimed "doesn't work" by some "professionals" of AD systems here proclaimed.

It has the lock data fed to it before launch via datalink, as I said. It's not a blind launch.

With what probability to hit? Recall Garry's comment. If it is getting a signal from datalink at long ranges, that datalink is sending off signals. Those signals can easily be picked up. Once again, See RQ-170 for more details on how Iran hacked it and landed it.

There are 4 scenarios of simple 1v1 A-A fight between stealth and traditional airframe, assuming both have up to date sensors

Both have radars turned off, using passive sensors: they are on equal footing because radar detection does come in to equation

Both have radars turned on: regarding detection range both are on equal footing because they will detect each other presence by radar radiation detectors before radars can register each other. Stealth will have slight advantage in getting earlier range and speed information then traditional plane, as passive radar detector give only direction information, not range and speed

Stealth radar on, traditional radar of: Traditional has advantage because it will detect stealth plane's radar before stealth plane detects him

Stealth radar off, traditional radar on: Stealth plane has advantage as it will detect traditional plane form massively lounger distance



In another words stealth planes in such simple scenarios achieve significant advantage only if they shut down their radar and hunt target that has radar on.

However this is academic because we know most of effective A-A combat will be done at relatively short ranges, few dozens kilometres. We know this form experience of Eritrea vs Ethiopia war when longer range missiles simply did not have kinematic performance necessary to engage highly manoeuvrable and fast targets like Mig-29 and su-27 at medium ranges. Stealth planes with they limited internal weapon space simply cannot load long range missiles that would be effective at ranges where they can avoid being detected by active plane radar before.

So scenario where F-22 sneaks to Su-30/35 at abut 50 kom and shoots passive guided missiles at Su will still likely not result in a kill because at that ranges F-22 internal bay missiles will be just as effective against Su as those R-27 used during Eritrea-Etiopia war. Su will detect missile launch, do evasive actions and drop decoy and avoid getting hit fairly reliably. If you want to reliably kill you need to get fairly close, no more the 20 km I think, but that is well within radar detection range thus losing much of the surprise.

miketheterrible wrote:With what probability to hit? Recall Garry's comment.  If it is getting a signal from datalink at long ranges, that datalink is sending off signals.  Those signals can easily be picked up.  Once again, See RQ-170 for more details on how Iran hacked it and landed it.

If the Su-30SM can single-handedly deny datalink use, well...
I didn't say ''stealth'' is panacea, but you sure do put your eggs in one basket with that statement.

For me LO is a good tool that with the right tactics is a winner. One is the example I made. I'm sure there are tons of other examples.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:With what probability to hit? Recall Garry's comment.  If it is getting a signal from datalink at long ranges, that datalink is sending off signals.  Those signals can easily be picked up.  Once again, See RQ-170 for more details on how Iran hacked it and landed it.

If the Su-30SM can single-handedly deny datalink use, well...
I didn't say ''stealth'' is panacea, but you sure do put your eggs in one basket with that statement.

For me LO is a good tool that with the right tactics is a winner. One is the example I made. I'm sure there are tons of other  examples.

All radiation is picked up, no matter how you look at it. Modern sensors are good at distinguishing it compared to what we used back in the 80's. But fair point in the end, you think LO is a good tool. Fine.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:With what probability to hit? Recall Garry's comment.  If it is getting a signal from datalink at long ranges, that datalink is sending off signals.  Those signals can easily be picked up.  Once again, See RQ-170 for more details on how Iran hacked it and landed it.

If the Su-30SM can single-handedly deny datalink use, well...
I didn't say ''stealth'' is panacea, but you sure do put your eggs in one basket with that statement.

For me LO is a good tool that with the right tactics is a winner. One is the example I made. I'm sure there are tons of other  examples.

All radiation is picked up, no matter how you look at it.  Modern sensors are good at distinguishing it compared to what we used back in the 80's.  But fair point in the end, you think LO is a good tool.  Fine.

Russia wouldn't develop PAK FA if they disagreed with me! In fact Russia has more datalink experience than what USAF did to their F-22As.
They foolishly denied them Link16-send capability

In fact, the scenario I vaguely described will be so much more deadly if implemented between Su-30s/35s, PAK FA and using both passive/active missiles.

PAK FA is an experiment with adaptation to new technologies overall.  What is being learned from its development will more than likely end up on future current generation of aircraft.  While it took the LO into consideration, there was far more input into its overall composite structure, new engines and overall, new sensors.  While it isn't Russia's first in the sensor structure being adapted for PAK FA, it is the first to have it all integrated into its body as a "Fusion" as the popular marketing term is called on.

The most important part is its sensor systems being implemented to deal with counter stealth.  Only thing on there that has my interest peaked at maximum is the L-Band arrays on it that are apparently newer than the ones used on the Su-35 and proclaimed to have a separate antenna to scan the skies.

The signals sent off from datalinks and all these other systems used by both Russia and the US can be picked up rather quite easily.  All this stuff is fantastic to use when using it against countries that have little in terms to counter it.  But things tend to get interesting when there are competent nations using these "pros" as a somewhat weak link in the chain.  RQ-170 should have been an eye opener for most.  It wasn't as it has rather taken a back seat and nearly forgotten about internationally. It also disproved my initial thought process that Iran was nothing but a backwater shithole.