How PAK-FA would counter F-22 in future aerial warfare

Book. wrote:F22 old design 1997 electronik the modular no

Old design wth

victor1985 wrote:alright seems here is no atention on this issue. in other words. seems seems noone take seriously but my point is that f22 is f...ed

technology alone does not wins wars.. tactics are important too..

An Ace pilot with good tactics in F-22 will defeat a good pilot in Pak-fa but poor tactics.
This means that skills and tactics are superior to technology any day. So an Amateur in Pak-fa
will be destroyed by a pro pilot in F-22.. and the same is true in the other way.

But if pilots skills and tactics are the same?

Then probably if what every side claim is true.. ie.. (F-22 more stealthy..and Pak-fa more maneuverable and better electronic warfare and better weapons)

Then if each side claims are true..and is a duel 1 vs 1.. no AWACS..
then the F-22 will be able to see first and shoot first.. but Pak-fa will be able to easily jam the missile..and cause it to miss.. And probably the F-22 will lose its stealth capabilities if needs to turn on its radars and guide the missile towards Pak-fa.. Allowing Pak-fa to get in a dog fight
and more easily defeat the F-22.

But because the F-22 have no infrared sensors.. and Pak-fa does.. in theory Pak-fa will be able
to fight without turning on Radars ..and remain hidden for a longer time if facing frontally
F-22..  So features wise , Pak-fa is a much more balanced and more all around combat plane.
with superior maneuverability.  and Feature wise.. F-22 should be more stealthy and remain hidden for more time as long dont fire a missile.

In a real war both planes will have AWACS support and Ground Radar support. If they fight for example near Japan or near Baltics. So the F-22 maybe will do the first shot and remain hidden.. but Pak-FA will see the missile and jam it and miss..  

All said.. pilots kills been the same.. for the first few minutes , the F-22 should have an
ambush advantage..in firing first.. but after few minutes it will become detected by IR sensors on PAk-fa and chased and defeated in forced to engage in a dogfight.

The real threat of the F-22 is that they have ~256 and that Russia have ZERO  Pak-fa in active service. If Russia manage to get Pak-fa in numbers ,lets say 500.. it will really be a game changer and literary totally dominate any NATO coalition of airforces.. in combination with  Su-35 and SU-30s.

All this scenarios does not include Patriot or S-400 help.. which will give a real advantage to the side who is invaded its territory..  S-400s in combination of Pantsirs will keep RUssia safe from any no fly zone.. More likely the only way you could see a Pak-FA vs F-22 fight is on neutral airspace..  in neutral waters.. Because invading a foreign nation with strong ground defenses is really dangerous and very risky ,even for stealth planes of any country. Even a manpad can be
dangerous against a low flying stealth plane.

ok thinking of that ive have a idea upon you could detect the f22. as we know there is signal noise from the sun. this noise get under the f22. or better said in the back under the f22. then theyre reflect by air exacly into the f22 from wich theyre reflect to the far front of f22 where a passive radar waits and upon the angle they enter they create a specific phase shift signal in the circuit now all you have to do is to corelate continuous phases shift with the continous angles at wich the f22 reflect the waves as he approach target so here we are f22 is visible

The noise from the sun is just that... noise.

To detect redirected noise signals you would need to be able to tell the difference between direct noise and redirected noise... good luck with that.

It would be rather easier just to detect the IR signature of the F-22.

[quote="GarryB"][quote]ok thinking of that ive have a idea upon you could detect the f22. as we know there is signal noise from the sun. this noise get under the f22. or better said in the back under the f22. then theyre reflect by air exacly into the f22 from wich theyre reflect to the far front of f22 where a passive radar waits and upon the angle they enter they create a specific phase shift signal in the circuit now all you have to do is to corelate continuous phases shift with the continous angles at wich the f22 reflect the waves as he approach target so here we are f22 is visible [/quote]

The noise from the sun is just that... noise.

To detect redirected noise signals you would need to be able to tell the difference between direct noise and redirected noise... good luck with that.

It would be rather easier just to detect the IR signature of the F-22.[/quote]
look what the thing that i've said is very simple : we have waves reflected from f22 at angles now as far ive read any electromagnetic wave when is not see (by eye in visible waves or antenna in case of radio waves) at 90 angles the signal is less powerfull (think that your eyes cant see better to the sides than the center) so in case of f22 (because this is where i want to reach) you just need a radar that follows those bunches of low signal waves also think that if the plane would be in consecutive movement the waves will cause consecutive levels of signals so here we are

[quote="Vann7"][quote="victor1985"]alright seems here is no atention on this issue. in other words. seems seems noone take seriously but my point is that f22 is f...ed [/quote]

technology alone does not wins wars.. tactics are important too..

An Ace pilot with good tactics in F-22 will defeat a good pilot in Pak-fa but poor tactics.
This means that skills and tactics are superior to technology any day. So an Amateur in Pak-fa
will be destroyed by a pro pilot in F-22.. and the same is true in the other way.

But if pilots skills and tactics are the same?

Then probably if what every side claim is true.. ie.. (F-22 more stealthy..and Pak-fa more maneuverable and better electronic warfare and better weapons)

Then if each side claims are true..and is a duel 1 vs 1.. no AWACS..
then the F-22 will be able to see first and shoot first.. but Pak-fa will be able to easily jam the missile..and cause it to miss.. And probably the F-22 will lose its stealth capabilities if needs to turn on its radars and guide the missile towards Pak-fa.. Allowing Pak-fa to get in a dog fight
and more easily defeat the F-22.

But because the F-22 have no infrared sensors.. and Pak-fa does.. in theory Pak-fa will be able
to fight without turning on Radars ..and remain hidden for a longer time if facing frontally
F-22..  So features wise , Pak-fa is a much more balanced and more all around combat plane.
with superior maneuverability.  and Feature wise.. F-22 should be more stealthy and remain hidden for more time as long dont fire a missile.

In a real war both planes will have AWACS support and Ground Radar support. If they fight for example near Japan or near Baltics. So the F-22 maybe will do the first shot and remain hidden.. but Pak-FA will see the missile and jam it and miss..  

All said.. pilots kills been the same.. for the first few minutes , the F-22 should have an
ambush advantage..in firing first.. but after few minutes it will become detected by IR sensors on PAk-fa and chased and defeated in forced to engage in a dogfight.

The real threat of the F-22 is that they have ~256 and that Russia have ZERO  Pak-fa in active service. If Russia manage to get Pak-fa in numbers ,lets say 500.. it will really be a game changer and literary totally dominate any NATO coalition of airforces.. in combination with  Su-35 and SU-30s.

All this scenarios does not include Patriot or S-400 help.. which will give a real advantage to the side who is invaded its territory..  S-400s in combination of Pantsirs will keep RUssia safe from any no fly zone.. More likely the only way you could see a Pak-FA vs F-22 fight is on neutral airspace..  in neutral waters.. Because invading a foreign nation with strong ground defenses is really dangerous and very risky ,even for stealth planes of any country.  Even a manpad can be
dangerous against a low flying stealth plane. [/quote]


a aircraft travell at 1000 kmh. divided by 60 minutes gives 16 km per minute make by a aircraft. a IR can see most far at 100 km. make the math. you will see that after spot the enemy aircraft with IR you have just few minutes (less than 10) to shoot the enemy plane thinking that after you and him fire the missile takes time to avoid and you have lesser time to make a plan so wouldnt be easyer to see it from 500 km i think yes

[quote="Stealthflanker"]There was an interesting concept surfaced in 1970's RAND Study. called as "Stellar radar" It's basically a Bi-static radar but using stars and sun as its non-cooperative emitters.

Nonetheless the theoritical groundwork of it (The paper also include mathematical equation for predicting performance) Showed that it might not be promising. Nonetheless it is one hell of interesting concept.[/quote]


i've found it on internet. i didnt understanded a single thing. so i just let at this level as a concept

look what the thing that i've said is very simple : we have waves reflected from f22 at angles now as far ive read any electromagnetic wave when is not see (by eye in visible waves or antenna in case of radio waves) at 90 angles the signal is less powerfull (think that your eyes cant see better to the sides than the center) so in case of f22 (because this is where i want to reach) you just need a radar that follows those bunches of low signal waves also think that if the plane would be in consecutive movement the waves will cause consecutive levels of signals so here we are

What you have said is simple at its base level but is also fundamentally wrong.

The surfaces of the F-22 and B-2 and F-35 are designed to redirect radar waves directed at them in directions other than that which the signals originally came.

In other words you send a radar beam at the aircraft and it scatters the signal in other directions but not back at the origin.

If you were to pick up a return signal you would have everything you need to locate the stealth aircraft... you know when you sent the signal, you know how fast it moves you know when you got a return signal and which direction it came from... with all that information you can locate in 3D space where the target is.

With a noise signal emitted from the sun you have no idea how far away the target is... in fact the signal bouncing off the stealth aircraft is the same as the signals bouncing off everything else... the signal doesn't suddenly become bright red when it bounces off stealth targets, that is why they call it noise... one signal coming direct from the sun to your system and another signal coming off the rear tail surface of an F-22 look exactly the same and you can't tell them apart.

[quote="GarryB"][quote]look what the thing that i've said is very simple : we have waves reflected from f22 at angles now as far ive read any electromagnetic wave when is not see (by eye in visible waves or antenna in case of radio waves) at 90 angles the signal is less powerfull (think that your eyes cant see better to the sides than the center) so in case of f22 (because this is where i want to reach) you just need a radar that follows those bunches of low signal waves also think that if the plane would be in consecutive movement the waves will cause consecutive levels of signals so here we are [/quote]

What you have said is simple at its base level but is also fundamentally wrong.

The surfaces of the F-22 and B-2 and F-35 are designed to redirect radar waves directed at them in directions other than that which the signals originally came.

In other words you send a radar beam at the aircraft and it scatters the signal in other directions but not back at the origin.

If you were to pick up a return signal you would have everything you need to locate the stealth aircraft... you know when you sent the signal, you know how fast it moves you know when you got a return signal and which direction it came from... with all that information you can locate in 3D space where the target is.

With a noise signal emitted from the sun you have no idea how far away the target is... in fact the signal bouncing off the stealth aircraft is the same as the signals bouncing off everything else... the signal doesn't suddenly become bright red when it bounces off stealth targets, that is why they call it noise... one signal coming direct from the sun to your system and another signal coming off the rear tail surface of an F-22 look exactly the same and you can't tell them apart.[/quote]


first of all i've been talking about a passive radar who doesnt send anything just receive. then yes ofcourse i know what is the shape of f22 and why is used for. third you could have a idea how far is it by having two (at least) radars close on each other and triangulate the signal ofcourse the signal bouncing from aicraft is the same in terms of frecvency with many waves in the air but has another angle at which is reflected by plane and as far as i understanded every wave that doesnt hit a antenna at 90 angle produce a phase shift let me search on this on internet

[quote="jhelb"][quote="Stealthflanker"]There was an interesting concept surfaced in 1970's RAND Study. called as "Stellar radar" It's basically a Bi-static radar but using stars and sun as its non-cooperative emitters.

Nonetheless the theoritical groundwork of it (The paper also include mathematical equation for predicting performance) Showed that it might not be promising. Nonetheless it is one hell of interesting concept.[/quote]

I was thinking something like Russia using ground based EW systems to target hostile F-22, F 35 etc over Russian airspace if they are involved in a dogfight with Russian Su 30 or Su 35s.

But then I suspect that ground based EW systems will also affect the Su 30s and Su 35s adversely.[/quote]
yes ofcourse but with a corelated system in wich your aircrafts send into the back their position to the radar and by exclusion he see only the enemy you could find the f22. also point is that the radar could scan air before your aircrafts fly. and a such radar can be used with a s400 missile truck imagine a huge radar conected to the missiles battery

ok i've been searching here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29
till now i found that viceversa is possible aka to shift a phase and obtain a different angle for the EM waves
now is suppose the opossite is possible as well but you need a complex array of antennas disposed diferently i will read entire page

yesssssss i've got it
it is possible
look to this copy paste from wikipedia


Reciprocity[edit]

It is a fundamental property of antennas that the electrical characteristics of an antenna described in the next section, such as gain, radiation pattern, impedance, bandwidth, resonant frequency and polarization, are the same whether the antenna is transmitting or receiving.[13][14] For example, the "receiving pattern" (sensitivity as a function of direction) of an antenna when used for reception is identical to the radiation pattern of the antenna when it is driven and functions as a radiator. This is a consequence of the reciprocity theorem of electromagnetics.[14] Therefore, in discussions of antenna properties no distinction is usually made between receiving and transmitting terminology, and the antenna can be viewed as either transmitting or receiving, whichever is more convenient.

jhelb wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:There was an interesting concept surfaced in 1970's RAND Study. called as "Stellar radar" It's basically a Bi-static radar but using stars and sun as its non-cooperative emitters.

Nonetheless the theoritical groundwork of it (The paper also include mathematical equation for predicting performance) Showed that it might not be promising. Nonetheless it is one hell of interesting concept.

I was thinking something like Russia using ground based EW systems to target hostile F-22, F 35 etc over Russian airspace if they are involved in a dogfight with Russian Su 30 or Su 35s.

But then I suspect that ground based EW systems will also affect the Su 30s and Su 35s adversely.

Not if the planes are not close to each other..
The EW system russia have shown.. have parabolic antenas , like a Dish satellite cable antenna.
That shows they can guide the electronic attack to any specific zone.. So as long the russian planes are not withing visual distance of the enemy planes ie.. 5km to 10km,, they will not be aimed with the gun.

The nice thing of radio eletromagnetic attacks is that is not affected like lazers are on bad weather. go to the EW thread ,and see what i posted.. If Russia Electronic warfare is half as good as they claim.. it will be a real game changer.. it should be able to turn off combat planes..
and damage its avionics and electric circuits.. this will be catastrophic ,no even the ejection sit will work.. knowing how Americans likes to use electronics in all. Or at the very least.. Russia
electronic warfare should be able to interrupt F-22 radars and make all their missiles to fail.

US airforce have counter electronics too.. so if both are good .. then pretty much modern warfare will be death.. none of the modern missiles will hit any target.. and you will need
old school anti air artillery or planes close combat gun.. to do the job ,that missiles cant do.

It is possible that in the future.. as science progress ,stand off ,long range warfare will be death and next to useless and armies will be forced to fight with Shields and swords and physical combat again..

For example gun powder or tnt or any chemical could be neutralized before it explode .
by remotely changing from distance its internal chemical composition of the explosive..
Any nation who develop this will be a hundreds year ahead of the any competition.. nothing
will explode again.. This however should be dangerous too for humans if used against them.

Putin himself told they were experimenting with Bombs that can damage diesel and fuel
in armor..without killing anyone or damaging any infrastructure. .. so essentially neutralize any convoy of tanks before it reach the warzone ,forcing any army to go on foot.. or wait for fuel ..

What we have seen until now from NATO ..is just primitive warfare in comparison to how advanced is science,physics , and mathematics today. For example everyone talks about electronics how USA have the world best electronics.. etc.. But a Scientist i had a conversation ,told me electronics are yesterday technology and it will be obsolete in near future. ,and that Science is at least 200 years head of the technology we see today. What will replace electronics is photonics circuits.

Science is even exploring things like time traveling or parallel universes.. phenomenons they
see happening in the atoms world. What happens is that Theory Science always comes first.. and it takes a hundred of years at least to see its implementation of science into the physical world .what people call "modern technology" in reality is something really old in science.

Today for example.. computer processors use silicon ,semiconductors to create modern computers.. But already science have proven is possible to operate and control atoms and electrons to store computer information. They believe when such quantum computers developed..the jump will be computers a million times faster ,than the ones we have today..
that will have the size of a sheet of paper. Really cool stuff .

So i suspect..we are on the verge of a new Era of advanced military warfare ,that will totally
revolutionize the way wars are done..and its seems Russia is way ahead in this.. with their EW weapons.

first of all i've been talking about a passive radar who doesnt send anything just receive. then yes ofcourse i know what is the shape of f22 and why is used for. third you could have a idea how far is it by having two (at least) radars close on each other and triangulate the signal ofcourse the signal bouncing from aicraft is the same in terms of frecvency with many waves in the air but has another angle at which is reflected by plane and as far as i understanded every wave that doesnt hit a antenna at 90 angle produce a phase shift let me search on this on internet

Yes, Victor, I know you are talking about passive... that is the problem.

If you were using radar pulses... ie active radar, then you could control when they were emitted and embed coded signals into the emission, so you can send ten powerful pulses with ten different codes so that when your passive sensors scattered all over the place receive return signals they can decode them and then based on when the signal was transmitted and when it was received you could work out the origin and distance to the targets.

Because you are using noise signals that could come from anywhere at any time receiving those signals is meaningless because you don't know when they were transmitted or from what angle so the time you receive them and the angle they arrive from tells you nothing about the location of the target except a single bearing... the real problem being you can't tell a signal that has bounced off a stealth fighter from one that has bounced off the ground or come directly from space... so like I said before all you have is noise.

Everything about the PAK-FA suggests that it is similar in concept to the Raptor—being optimized as a fast, high flying and stealthy air superiority fighter. One good example is stealth. The T-50’s design places far less emphasis on all-aspect low observables. Instead, it focuses on frontal aspect stealth—thus it has a so-called “Pac-Man” signature where as the F-22’s signature looks more like a spider if one were to look at it from a God’s eye view. Stealth is where the F-22 holds a huge advantage over the Russian jet.

In terms of sheer kinematics, the T-50 and the F-22 are probably comparable—especially once the PAK-FA receives new engines. The Russian jet’s current Izdeliye 117 engines are decent, but ultimately the plane will need to reequipped with the developmental Izdeliye 30 motors to fully exploit the capabilities of its airframe.

In terms of avionics, the Raptor probably has the edge in terms of sensor fusion and pilot-vehicle interface. The Russian don’t have the best track record for developing user-friendly cockpits—one look at the cockpit of a MiG-29 tells the story. But they are getting better. Overall sensor performance might be comparable, Russians make decent radars and they have excellent electronic warfare systems.

What are chances of F 22 against Pak Fa? And what are the Chances of F 22 against Pak Fa SU 35S?

Very simply the F-22 is supposed to be the only stealth fighter in the air and is designed to allow the USAF to cope with thousands of 3rd and 4th gen fighters like MiG-23s and MiG-29s at stand off distances.

The F-22 flys high and fast so it can attack its 6 targets and then fly home and rearm and refuel.

the obvious problem is that its main armament is the AMRAAM missile which wont lock on to a stealth target at anything like BVR range so it becomes a WVR fight where stealth is not longer much use and manouver capability will win because he who shoots with cannons will kill. (He who shoots with WVR AAMs will find DIRCMS a problem for kills).

at the end of the day the F-22 is a long range sniper designed to fight from an unseen distance from the high ground.

The PAK FA has long range sensors that will allow targets like F-22 snipers to be detected at reasonable ranges and its ability to get close to an F-22 means it will be a knife fight... the sort of fight a PAK FA will likely win due to its better flight characteristics... not to mention eventually better numbers and range of sensors... and supporting IAD.

F-22 has an edge over pak fa in beam and aft sector RCS .The frontal vlo performance is equally great for both these majestic aircrafts . It was supposed that sensor fusion would be an arena where Sukhoi would find it rather difficult to come up with a relavant mature solution. With the introduction of IMA BK mission computer and fire control complex developed in house, the critics may have been silenced. There is still some time to go. And the rear fuselage shaping will be refined, those cylindrical unstealthy nacelles will give way to faceted ones once Izdeliye 30 appears. then the rear and beam signatures will be as good as the F-35 if not better. Hope the prototypes coming out would carry these features.. expecting replays dear admins,,

Maneuverability is NOT the holly grail in aerial combat. The T-50 is pale in comparison to the F-35 especially in stealth and situational awareness which is of number one importance in any fighter aircraft. Could this be true????

moskit wrote:  

Maneuverability is NOT the holly grail in aerial combat. The T-50 is pale in comparison to the F-35 especially in stealth and situational awareness which is of number one importance in any fighter aircraft. Could this be true????

HATOstani circle-jerking... nothing more.

moskit wrote:F-22 has an edge over pak fa in beam and aft sector RCS .The frontal vlo performance is equally great for both these majestic aircrafts . It was supposed that sensor fusion would be an arena where Sukhoi would find it rather difficult to come up with a relavant mature solution. With the introduction of IMA BK mission computer and fire control complex developed in house, the critics may have been silenced. There is still some time to go. And the rear fuselage shaping will be refined, those cylindrical unstealthy nacelles will give way to faceted ones once Izdeliye 30 appears. then the rear and beam signatures will be as good as the F-35 if not better. Hope the prototypes coming out would carry these features.. expecting replays dear admins,,

Does the F-35 have a facetted engine nacelle? Does it has a concealed engine nozzle ala F-22? Nope, yet both of these ommissions are routinely held up as "weaknesses" in the "non-stealthy" T-50 design.....

Don't bother with the fuktardishness of HATOstani zealots. They will inflate F-22/35 until they are godlike machines, while sledging the T-50 as a "primitive failure"..... stupid is as stupid does...

PAK FA will have 5 large AESA radars in its front (nose and wings) which should provide enough radar energy to burn the little brain out of any ARH missile.

DIRCMs should deal with all optically guided missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X etc.

This suggests it will turn into a gun fight.

Who was saying that manouverability wont be important... ohh that is right... the people with the less manouverable aircraft F-35 and F-22...

Why don't I believe them?

GarryB wrote:PAK FA will have 5 large AESA radars in its front (nose and wings) which should provide enough radar energy to burn the little brain out of any ARH missile.

DIRCMs should deal with all optically guided missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X etc.

This suggests it will turn into a gun fight.

Who was saying that manouverability wont be important... ohh that is right... the people with the less manouverable aircraft F-35 and F-22...

Why don't I believe them?

Someone mentioned relectors for 5 gen fighters in an other thread. Do you think they could be better than chaffs against radar missiles ??

Chaff is basicaly a cloud that won't move once lunched while reflector can have huge RCS. So in a complexe jamming environment plus some relfectors simulating a target of 10 m² each one, missiles will probably not see the Pak Fa and will go after the reflectors.

Corner reflectors, sometimes called luneberg lenses actually magnify a radar signal and help redirect the signal back to the source.

They have put optical equivalents on the moon so they can point lasers at the moon to measure how far away it is.

Some big powerful laser is pointed at the moon aimed at a reflector and a few photons are reflected back to earth... tiny signal but speed of light is known so only a few photons are needed for precise measure of distance.

With a radar and luneberg lense I always thought a carefully designed lense could be used to create a 10,000 square metre radar return... you would not know what is hidden in there and what is not.

Chaff is cut to half the wave length of the radar wave being jammed so it actually does the same thing. Some radar are sophisticated enough to detect a non moving cloud of Chaff and ignore it... a corner reflector on a towed decoy that also has an active jammer and chaff dispenser should be more effective.

The advantage of a corner reflector is that it can be made really solid so even a missile impact and explosion wont deform it so it will continue to function after multiple hits potentially.

As I mentioned in another thread a solution to defeat an tank based APS system could be HMG rounds like the 14.5mm rounds with plastic radar transparent noses with corner reflectors inside simulating a target .5 square metres... like an ATGM end on... a burst of 20 shells at a tank and the tank thinks 20 missiles are coming and expends all its defensive munitions and then you fire the real missile...

The Soviets already had 23mm and 30mm cannon shells that released Chaff and Flare components... used with CIWS gun systems and in 23mm defensive cannon on bombers to distract incoming air to air or anti ship missiles.

Why there are more radars on pak fa compared to f 22?

Admins, please add some light in to this matter. Why does the T 50 keep side and rear facing AESA radars? Wont a single forward facing AESA plus a DAS do the work ? Will so many radars increases the cost, and complexity of the plane like t 50?? thank u.

This is a forum, not the Russian military.

I cannot tell you why they went for 5 radars on the PAK FA... the two AESA radars in L band in the shoulder positions of the wings are for detecting long wave emissions from datalinks and would also offer the ability to detect stealth targets at extended ranges, but having three radar mounted facing forward and sideways suggests to me the ability to monitor airspace to the sides of the aircraft have been deemed useful without the need for the aircraft to turn.

There was talk of radar antenna arrays in next generation aircraft being conformal and fixed pointing in all sorts of directions at once.

It makes little sense to have AESA radar types on mechanical steering mechanisms... the whole point of an electronically scanned array is to be able to scan the entire field of view electronically in miliseconds... slowing that down with a mechanical steering system suggests a problem in the field of regard of the system. Look at most modern ships with AESA arrays and they tend to have three or four arrays fixed covering 360 degrees... it is much more efficient to do that than to put one array in a mechanical system to turn it... it is obviously more expensive to have three or four arrays too, but the results are useful.

In terms of detecting targets the PAK FA is not designed to operate on its own in enemy air space... it will have a decent view of the airspace around it from other platforms already, so three nose mounted AESA arrays in X band suggests the ability to fly away from threats while still monitoring the situation...

Keeping your distance is useful when you are stealthy and have long range AAMs.

The side panels are good only to detect missiles or enemy radars.

The steerable ESA is used on many airplane , because it can give no more than 120 degree coverage, and the strength is decreasing as you steering off from the axis .


The steer ability is important as well for jam resistance.