PAK FA, T-50: News #1

T-50-3 (053) again in the air. It will be nice to see all three together in the air.

No probe on the nose cone. Unreliable indicator of having a radar installed, guess we'll just have to wait and see.

AFAIK it was confirmed it was flying with on board avionics including radar.

AESA hopefully is being tested on board, any idea what its designation is?

Salyut unveils the AL-31F series 42 (Modernized) version at the Technology show. Trust is 15T.



Origin of picture: http://missiles2go.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/img_0542.jpg?w=1000&h=

AESA hopefully is being tested on board, any idea what its designation is?

If you look back through this thread I think Austin has posted several articles which include mockups of the radar for PAK FA.

AFAIK they are using Su-30s to test it as well.

N-036 iirc.

Had a quick look and according to the article I found the "radar system" is called Sh-121 and is based on 6 radar antennas, including the large forward facing X band radar in the nose as well as two smaller side facing X band radar in the sides of the nose and two L band AESA radar antenna in the wing leading edges. The 6th antenna is to be mounted in an external pod and will be a Ka band MMW radar optimised for ground targets.

The radar suite is being developed by NIIP.

The front scanning radar is designated N036-1-1, the side facing radar are called N036B and the wing mounted L band radar antenna are called N036L. No designation for the Ka band external pod mounted radar is given.

Interview of Tikhomirov-NIIP Director General Yuri Bely in latest Take off issue

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to23.pdf

Updates on PAK-FA AESA
Tu-22M3 and Tu-160M update will use a variant of Irbis

Austin wrote:Interview of Tikhomirov-NIIP Director General Yuri Bely in latest Take off issue

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to23.pdf

Updates on PAK-FA AESA
Tu-22M3 and Tu-160M update will use a variant of Irbis

Thanks for the sharing Austin, attentive and precious as usual.

Yes Irbis chosen as "basis" for a new series of radars for long range bombers is a good information ,but the news that i find most interesting (one of which i was completely oblivious) is that highlighted by that statement:

"We have developed a Zhuk-AE version featuring an increased-diameter 688-mm AESA – the FGA-35 – for use on productionstandard fighters.
The number of the AESA’s T-R modules has grown by almost 50% to slight more than a thousand. The radar’s performance will improve considerably with an insignificant weight increase. The improvement is planned for demonstration during the flight tests using the MiG-29SMT (side number 777) prototype, the tests scheduled for late summer.

Based on the outcome of the trials, RusAF will make up its mind which version of the MiG fighters will be bought by the Defence Ministry in the later 2010s – MiG-35 equipped with the AESA radar or MiG-29M/M2 with the less expensive Zhuk-ME slot-array radar.
I am certain that we will be able to highlight the far more advanced capabilities of the AESA radar, for such radars own the future."

This news ,togheter with the surprising declaration of some weeks ago that a MiG-35 will be used to execute the imminent test flights on INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier, project suddenly a spark of interest on an aircraft that ,some months ago, appeared almost completely forgotten.

The Zhuk-AE was always planned to have 1064 elements in the final full size version, as opposed to the 680 element prototype.

Really hope the MOD doesn't cheap out and buys Zhuk-M2.

Well first of all I am pleased that this confirms they will be buying new Mig-29s.

Both the Mig-29M2 and Mig-35 would be excellent new fighters for the Russian military to finally start replacing some of those old birds they use currently.

Second there is an irony that AESAs only mature and get cheaper to buy when you buy lots of them and take advantage of large production volumes.

Buying non AESA radars now in the hope that in the future the cost of AESA radars will go down is a contradiction, because if you don't buy any then they don't need to make lots of modules which means they remain expensive to make...

Hopefully its performance is so much better than any alternative and it gets into the air on operational fighters soon.

I just hope they really buy the Mig-35 in the same number as Su-35S which is 90 +.

If you have paid attention to the news in that issue , it mentions development on RD-33MKM engine with 9.5 T of thrust and a engine for export with 9.3 T of thrust , the 9.5 T is reportedly for RuAF.

I also hope they make use of Klimov 3D TVC that they have tested on Mig-29 engine.

I think a modified IRBIS for Tu-22M3M and Tu-160M might have a larger antenna but the gain will be mostly obtained if they use more than 2 TWT or TWT with high power

Irbis has 2 TWTs rated at 10kW , giving it a peak power of 20kW , if they can add 3-4 TWT then they would get far higher power and a bomber can supply more power.

A bomber does not really need long A2A mode other than warning itself as they dont carry A2A missile , but most improvements on improved irbis can be expected in A2G modes as that is where bomber will use most of its weapon , so better signal processing for better ground resolution , more number of A2G modes etc

With China on the verge of receiving the S 400 from Russia the SU 30 MKI's as well as the PAK FA's internal jammer will have to be modified if Indian ( or any other ) air force/s has to penetrate Chinese airspace.

No internal jammer for any combat aircrafts ( worldwide) has enough on-board power-generation capacity for neutralizing the high-power target illuminators of S 400. IRST & MWAS operate in different wavelengths as they have totally different functions. The BARS MMR can only detect targets in the frontal hemisphere, while SAMs & BVRAAMs never come head-long. They either appear from the rear or sideways. It will probably become necessary for the Super Sukhoi ( Su 30 MKI Mk3 ) to have an aft mounted radar.

Wait. What do we need the MiG-35s for again?

GazB you pointed out in another thread that the MiG-29 is too similar in cost, capabilities and so on to the Su-27; for there to really be all that great a point to it. You might as well just get Su-27s; if you're going to splash out on a AESA Radar, 3D thrust-vectoring, and all the other bells and whistles. It's like getting a new computer. If you've got the cash for a $500 graphics card and the latest processor anyway, you might as well get a high-end motherboard and enough RAM to take advantage of them; otherwise the card and processor won't be used to their full potential.

If you want to get MiG-29s; fine, but then play to the advantage of the concept of a light fighter; and just get more of them, but with cheaper Radars, Engines, etc... When coupled in a support role to Su-27s; these drawbacks will be bolstered by the capabilities of the superior aircraft anyway; and having a cheaper Radar will matter very little.

I'm no expert but it seems to me that they really should have focussed on making the new MiG-29 version as cheap and effective as possible; and something that the old models can be upgraded to; rather than a Su-27 wannabee like the MiG-35.

The only real exception to this would be for the carrier-borne MiG-29Ks. For them it would certainly make sense to recieve AESA Radars and 3D nozzles. And it's exactly them that don't have it.

It makes sense in terms of
1.) Making up numbers - while Su-35 production amps up, MiG factories can be put to work, to make up for large scale retirement of legacy craft this decade.
2.) Supporting the people these plants employ.

Operationally it does cost less to operate than Su-35, but the difference is not huge I suspect, so that would not be the primary motivation.
Also, ordering the type increases export chances, and there are a number of interested parties, especially near Russia.

I just hope they really buy the Mig-35 in the same number as Su-35S which is 90 +.

Round numbers for squadron service would be 48 or 96 aircraft and I agree a similar number to the Super Flankers would be ideal.

...and yes I did notice the increase in engine thrust, which will be very useful. I remember reading in the mid 1990s their long term plans were to eventually get the RD-33 up to about 10 tons thrust and that a thoroughly 5th gen model was going to be developed... I remember talk of a designation like RD-45 or something with a thrust of 12 tons and optimised for 5th gen light fighters and super cruising.

A bomber does not really need long A2A mode other than warning itself as they dont carry A2A missile , but most improvements on improved irbis can be expected in A2G modes as that is where bomber will use most of its weapon , so better signal processing for better ground resolution , more number of A2G modes etc

There is no reason why one bomber in a flight of bombers could not be designated escort bomber and carry 24 tons of AAMs in the case of the Tu-22M3 or 45 tons in the case of Tu-160. A mix of RVV-BD, and RVV-SD missiles for dealing with incoming threats like AMRAAM or Meteor. Even RVV-MD with a modified seeker designed to hit active radar homing missiles with an IR sensor to detect the heated nosecones of incoming missiles could be worked on.

For non strategic missions it would be handy to have a Tu-23M3MP that can orbit enemy airspace for very long periods with a couple of guided air to ground weapons to support operations but also air to air weapons to deal with any enemy use of air power including UAVs and helos or light ground attack aircraft.

With China on the verge of receiving the S 400 from Russia the SU 30 MKI's as well as the PAK FA's internal jammer will have to be modified if Indian ( or any other ) air force/s has to penetrate Chinese airspace.

No exports of S-400 till after 2017 and I rather suspect that it will not be a complete S-400 that ever gets exported to China.

Russia and China fighting plays right into the wests hands... and India and China fighting does too... divide and conquer.

No internal jammer for any combat aircrafts ( worldwide) has enough on-board power-generation capacity for neutralizing the high-power target illuminators of S 400.

Which is why you have dedicated jammer aircraft operate with your combat aircraft. Power is directly proportional to distance. Like dazzling someone with a bright torch... you wait till they get very close and then you shine it directly in their eyes.

GazB you pointed out in another thread that the MiG-29 is too similar in cost, capabilities and so on to the Su-27; for there to really be all that great a point to it. You might as well just get Su-27s; if you're going to splash out on a AESA Radar, 3D thrust-vectoring, and all the other bells and whistles. It's like getting a new computer. If you've got the cash for a $500 graphics card and the latest processor anyway, you might as well get a high-end motherboard and enough RAM to take advantage of them; otherwise the card and processor won't be used to their full potential.

The Mig-29 and Su-27 are very different birds to the Mig-35 and Su-35BM.

There are currently units equipped with Mig-29s that are doing their jobs properly right now. They don't need an Su-35S. A Mig-35 will suit that role better than an Su-35S will.
The Mig-35 would be better if it was lighter and perhaps single engined and cheaper to buy and also much cheaper to operate.
Right now the Su-35 is likely to be in fairly good demand both domestically and internationally. Sukhoi is going to be stretched to meet demand making Su-34s, Su-35s, Su-30s, and PAK FAs. The problem is that expanding capacity will mean when production drops off they are going to be left with too much production capacity which will cost them money.

Right now the Mig-35 is a largely developed aircraft... it is ready to go through all the last few steps to become an operational fighter aircraft. It is not just Mig, but also the makers of the engines and the IRST systems and radar etc have all invested time and effort and their own money to develop this aircraft... and it is a good aircraft. You can waste that money invested and just buy some more Flankers, or you can put the factory workers that work on Migs to work and get them building more planes. They are already going to be making Mig-29K2 planes for the Russian Navy, but by adding orders for 48 or 96 Mig-35s or even Mig-29M2s will not only be a huge boost to a company that has produced excellent fighters in the past, and the Navy and Aerospace Defence forces currently need their Mig-29Ks and Mig-31s anyway. Having these extra aircraft built reduces production pressure on Sukhoi, and should save some money in terms of fuel consumption. Most Flankers in Russia fly with half full tanks 90% of the time anyway. The Mig-35 is a capable multirole fighter bomber that will perform well in a range of roles for the next 20 years.

In tests with India and the US, there is still room for smaller fighters... they are harder to see and deal with.

Remember it is accountants that think big heavy long range aircraft with large weapon loads can cover larger areas... an Su-35 with twice the weapons carried and twice the range cannot replace two Mig-35s, because two Mig-35s can be in two places at once, which is something a single Su-35 could ever do.

More importantly with a proper net centric environment with data sharing only one of the Migs needs to use its radar and both aircraft can share the data... to an enemy listening their appears to only be one enemy fighter there.

If you want to get MiG-29s; fine, but then play to the advantage of the concept of a light fighter; and just get more of them, but with cheaper Radars, Engines, etc... When coupled in a support role to Su-27s; these drawbacks will be bolstered by the capabilities of the superior aircraft anyway; and having a cheaper Radar will matter very little.

By the time they get Mig-35s into service it will likely be 2017-2018 so by then with large production batches for ground, air and naval radar antenna arrays the AESA radar should be a fairly cheap item in Russia by then and should be smaller and lighter as well. Even if they just go for PESA it should be relatively cheap but importantly effective.

I'm no expert but it seems to me that they really should have focussed on making the new MiG-29 version as cheap and effective as possible; and something that the old models can be upgraded to; rather than a Su-27 wannabee like the MiG-35.

There is nothing wrong with getting almost Su-35 performance in a Mig-29 sized airframe... that is actually a bonus, not a draw back. For the vast majority of its missions most Su-35s in Russian operational service will not use a fraction of their range or payload capacity and so for much of the time such roles could be performed by the cheaper and lighter Mig. The location of airfields and units means that some units are equipped with Migs for that very reason, and it makes sense to replace those Mig-29s with a mix of Mig-29M2/SMT like aircraft and Mig-35s. For other units where escort duties involve long flights it makes sense to replace Su-27s with Su-35s.

The only real exception to this would be for the carrier-borne MiG-29Ks. For them it would certainly make sense to recieve AESA Radars and 3D nozzles. And it's exactly them that don't have it.

Over the life span of these aircraft there will be upgrades and improvements... the AESA radars that will eventually be fitted to any Mig-29Ks or Mig-29SMT/M2 or Mig-35s in service in 2020 and beyond will likely be a relative of the AESAs being developed for the Mig-35 now. By 2020 the modules will have gone down from $500 US per module to perhaps $1 per module so putting 1,000 modules in each plane is going to get much much cheaper... in the same way that a super computer that needs thousands of CPUs become more affordable as the cost of the CPUs drop.

Also as TR-1 points out the Su-35S is a big heavy expensive aircraft with specific requirements in terms of hangars and runway weights. Some air forces don't need that kind of performance, but they want a new up to date design that can use new weapons effectively.

A smaller lighter aircraft is cheaper to fly... it is just basic physics... large heavier aircraft require more energy to push around the sky.

Surprisingly enough the Indian Navy has not yet come up with an explanation till date as to why they chose a PESA radar over an AESA radar for the upgraded MIG 29 when an AESA radar was available. Though certain quarters have stated that they will eventually get to test an AESA radar once the SU 30 MKI are upgraded to SUper Sukhois , such explanations don't cut much ice.

Sujoy wrote:Surprisingly enough the Indian Navy has not yet come up with an explanation till date as to why they chose a PESA radar over an AESA radar for the upgraded MIG 29 when an AESA radar was available.

Indian Navy Mig-29K dont have PESA but Slotted Array Antenna Zhuk-M to be precise , so does IAF upgraded Mig-29UPG.

Austin wrote:

Sujoy wrote:Surprisingly enough the Indian Navy has not yet come up with an explanation till date as to why they chose a PESA radar over an AESA radar for the upgraded MIG 29 when an AESA radar was available.

Indian Navy Mig-29K dont have PESA but Slotted Array Antenna Zhuk-M to be precise , so does IAF upgraded Mig-29UPG.

The confusion surrounding the radar for the Mig 29K had primarily been started by members of the Indian Navy. They had reported to the Defense Ministry that the MiG-29K is equipped with the Zhuk-E radar . Now the Zhuk E / Zhuk MFS - E uses a PESA antenna, which has a diameter of 980 mm with a peak power output of 8 kW. This BTW is the same radar that the Chinese Shenyang J-10B is using .

However, last September when CAG pulled up the Navy for purchasing 16 MiG 29K aircraft without finalising contract for an accompanying weapons system they had no answers for it . It was also reported that the BVR missile selected cannot be integrated with the current radar. This development is surprising coz all Russian made BVR missiles should be able to be integrated with the Zhuk M radar (This came close on the heels of 3 Navy officers being accused of damaging a "sensitive radar" ).

The fact that the Indian Navy purposely got the Mig 29K without any weapons gives further credence to the fact that not all is well with the Navy's Mig 29 K Fire Control System.

The IN Mig-29K uses Zhuk-ME radar ( the E there stands for export as you may be aware ) and its a slotted array radar no PESA or AESA.

You can check the specs of Zhuk-ME here and you can see its slotted array

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/f/135/zhukme0krnc4.jpg/

Although I suspect the specs might have been improved.

Also check Mig official website on Mig-29K it confirms it uses ME radar
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm

Latest update on Indian Navy Mig-29K

MiG-29s Begin Sea Trials Aboard India’s New Aircraft Carrier

Sujoy wrote:Surprisingly enough the Indian Navy has not yet come up with an explanation till date as to why they chose a PESA radar over an AESA radar for the upgraded MIG 29 when an AESA radar was available. Though certain quarters have stated that they will eventually get to test an AESA radar once the SU 30 MKI are upgraded to SUper Sukhois , such explanations don't cut much ice.

Price and availability is how I see it. Zhuk-M2 has been in production, it is well tested, and integrated. Also in service across the world. Zhuk-AE is (and certainly was back when deal signed) well off on all those counts.
I imagine it weighs less than an AESA or PESA as well.

Indeed, I wouldn't put an AESA on a plane I was receiving now... because it is not ready for a start.

A new radar will be fairly straight forward to fit in a few years time once it is sorted out.

A mature radar now will offer better performance/price than a brand new AESA.

Let them sort out the kinks and problems and upgrade in 4-5 years time.

You need to get a pool of pilots qualified to fly the planes from the carriers before you start worrying about radar range or performance...

Austin wrote:The IN Mig-29K uses Zhuk-ME radar ( the E there stands for export as you may be aware ) and its a slotted array radar no PESA or AESA.

You can check the specs of Zhuk-ME here and you can see its slotted array

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/f/135/zhukme0krnc4.jpg/

Although I suspect the specs might have been improved.

Also check Mig official website on Mig-29K it confirms it uses ME radar
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm

Austin, many thanks for the links .

TR1 wrote:

Price and availability is how I see it. Zhuk-M2 has been in production, it is well tested, and integrated. Also in service across the world. Zhuk-AE is (and certainly was back when deal signed) well off on all those counts.
I imagine it weighs less than an AESA or PESA as well.

Most models of slotted array radar actually weights more than a PESA radar . Also , please note that slotted radars use one transmitter and pumps the energy through wave guides and out the slots. Therefore unlike an AESA radar no phasing of the signal is possible.

GarryB wrote:

You need to get a pool of pilots qualified to fly the planes from the carriers before you start worrying about radar range or performance...

Indian Airforce Pilots are getting trained in Russia so that they can operate the AESA radar on board the Super Sukhois.