Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

GarryB wrote:No, Irbis is the radar in the nose of the Su-35... though it might use the wing mounted L band AESA to augment its ability to detect targets too... Like the ground based NEBO uses three different radars operating in three different frequencies to detect and track difficult targets.

The ground based radars are big enough to transmit huge power to detect targets at long distances .

but the air based has no such capability and of course the wing based L-band (twelve elements per array) has more less capability than the nose based one ( which is x-band on Irbis-E ).

The detection range could be increased by increasing the elements that will improve the power aperture but there is a limit because of the liquid cooling capacity and the available leading edge flap volume.

And the fact the limitation of the energy supplied by the engines themselves. Can't create power out of thin air.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
S-70 is not a replacement for anything, just a complimentary piece. That's how Uncle Sham thinks. It's kind of like how the Russian's planned on flying Su-35's with their Su-57's, when the Americans said F-35's would replace NATO fighters.     It won't replace manned stealth fighters, manned CAS, manned strike fighters. If a Su-57 offshoot designed in the same degree as a replacement for the Su-32/34 than Okhotnik couldn't dream of being a proper substitute. One of a few things a Su-62/64 could in all likelihood do better than a S-70 (or even the Su-57) is being a flying command post, being a major part of weaving sensors and anti-air and ground attack munitions, UAV's/UCAV's/UGV's in hybrid missions against peer/near-pear OPFOR.

What you refer is the typical Russian way of transitioning from one platform to the next. They coexist, because that makes much more sense from an economic and industrial base point of view, but that does not mean that platforms are not substituted by newer ones. Flanker will coexist with Su-57 but will they be bought say post 2030? At a certain point of time they will not be bought anymore and PAK-FA will constitute de bulk of the VKS fighters.

Regarding manned vs. unmanned strike platforms, I think it is clear that the attrition levels they have to sustain provide a very clear incentive to air forces to use preferentially the first ones and spare not just manned platforms but irreplaceable pilots. The concept of having manned platforms coordinating and supporting unmanned ones from behind is very solid and will allow to transition from the current paradigm to fully autonomous machines at some point in the next decade.

The ground based radars are big enough to transmit huge power to detect targets at long distances .

but the air based has no such capability and of course the wing based L-band (twelve elements per array) has more less capability than the nose based one ( which is x-band on Irbis-E ).

The detection range could be increased by increasing the elements that will improve the power aperture but there is a limit because of the liquid cooling capacity and the available leading edge flap volume.

It is not about the power, it is about the aspects of the different frequencies being used... a lot of higher frequencies are effected by moisture in the air... that is why they are used as weather radars... the lower frequency radars are not effected by moisture and are not effected by aircraft shape or coatings a few mms thick...

If the L band wing mounted radar lack power to detect stealth aircraft... then why are they there?

When the enemy builds ABM defences do you develop hypersonic ballistic weapons to defeat it with numbers, or develop hypersonic manouvering targets the defences can't deal with to defeat it?

F-35 and F-22 have stealth features against the radars generally used in modern fighter and anti aircraft missiles... wider frequency ranges need to be used to overcome such protection.

One of a few things a Su-62/64 could in all likelihood do better than a S-70 (or even the Su-57) is being a flying command post, being a major part of weaving sensors and anti-air and ground attack munitions, UAV's/UCAV's/UGV's in hybrid missions against peer/near-pear OPFOR.

A strike version of the Su-57 would be interesting... if you drop the requirements for high speed and high manouver and massively increased the body volume for extra fuel and internal weapons the results could be rather interesting... but off topic for this thread.

It is not about the power, it is about the aspects of the different frequencies being used... a lot of higher frequencies are effected by moisture in the air... that is why they are used as weather radars... the lower frequency radars are not effected by moisture and are not effected by aircraft shape or coatings a few mms thick...

If the L band wing mounted radar lack power to detect stealth aircraft... then why are they there?

I didn't say it will not detect it ,the L-band will detect the stealth ,it's physics coz that band produces wavelengths with comparable size to the aircraft itself.

I meant the range of that detection .Power matters ,it's a main parameter on the radar detection range equation ,doubling it could increase the detection range by 25% .

The mentioned 266 km is more than the capability of the small wing-mounted L-band radar in it's active mode .

The L-band could be used not only against stealth technology but for several tasks like the passive tracking of Link-16 transmitters and detection of surface/land based radars .

It's detection active mode range could be increased by 80% in the case of increasing the number of elements from 12 to 16.

capability of the small wing-mounted L-band radar in it's active mode .

Small?

Have you seen it?

The elements of an L band radar are rather big and the L band array is wider than the nose array on the Su-35... why are you calling it small?

It's detection active mode range could be increased by 80% in the case of increasing the number of elements from 12 to 16.

It could also be increased by having two of them spaced a distance apart in the wing roots of a fighter plane, and when connected to a computer that is also processing data from a nose mounted radar operating in a totally different frequency range then the results can be processed and information extracted that could not be extracted from any single nose mounted radar alone.

Which was the point I was trying to make.

The fact that that chart is in nautical miles suggests to me that it is a western developed chart, which is interesting because before the Soviets revealed they had rocket powered torpedoes a western chart showing torpedo running speeds would top out at about 70 knots and anything faster than that would be not included in that chart... western charts and western experts are like that...

The west has known about Calibre and Club land attack missiles in Russian service but never really acknowledged their existence till they were used against terrorists in Syria...


Russia tracking F-35s on the border between Iran and Iraq suggests they know what they are doing against stealth as well... but lets wait to it is used officially before we actually panic.

The elements of an L band radar are rather big and the L band array is wider than the nose array on the Su-35... why are you calling it small?

The nose mounted radar has a circular shape which in overall give more space to use more TR modules , also give better antenna directivity .

The horizontal design of the wing mounted radar will reduce the antenna directivity area ,limitation of the cooling system size and the total number of modules ,hence the total transmitted peak power would be away less than any mounted nose radar .

By the way the imagery from MAKS-2009 showing each array employs twelve antenna elements in three quad TR modules .

It could also be increased by having two of them spaced a distance apart in the wing roots of a fighter plane, and when connected to a computer that is also processing data from a nose mounted radar operating in a totally different frequency range then the results can be processed and information extracted that could not be extracted from any single nose mounted radar alone.

The computer will process all the data from active/passive systems like the radars ,OLS or RWR .That's fine but each system has it's own capability and detection range . The L-band is just give a capability  which cannot be given easily in the X/Ku-bands .They can also embed the IFF there .

Russia tracking F-35s on the border between Iran and Iraq suggests they know what they are doing against stealth as well.

Yes and they can track it also 60 years ago using their VHF radars but being a land based radar would give more flexibilty to increase the antenna size and provide enough power for it and using multible antennas with different wavelengths like the NEBO system .

but lets wait to it is used officially before we actually panic.

I guess the same , from 2009 to now it should be fully tested and matured .

The nose mounted radar has a circular shape which in overall give more space to use more TR modules , also give better antenna directivity .

The two dimensional array of a nose mounted radar gives more information than a single linear array of sensors... but the individual sensors themselves are just the same... though operating in different frequency ranges.

The horizontal design of the wing mounted radar will reduce the antenna directivity area ,limitation of the cooling system size and the total number of modules ,hence the total transmitted peak power would be away less than any mounted nose radar .

It is not about peak power... American stealth aircraft are stealthy in a narrow frequency range only...

Think of it in terms of infra red and visible light... the F-35 and F-22 have colour camouflage that makes them very very hard to see with a normal digital camera.

The Su-57 has a powerful digital camera that can see fine details and when zoomed in could detect the presence of either aircraft once it knows where to look.

The L band wing mounted array is a thermal imager in this example... the paint they used to camouflage the US aircraft does not work in IR, so both aircraft glow with their heat... just like any other aircraft whether it is stealthy or not.

The L band radar is used for detection and general location and then the nose mounted radar is used to identify and track the stealthy target it might have had trouble finding if it didn't know where to look to start with.

By the way the imagery from MAKS-2009 showing each array employs twelve antenna elements in three quad TR modules .

That would be the export version I would think. I would also think the domestic version will be secret.

The computer will process all the data from active/passive systems like the radars ,OLS or RWR .That's fine but each system has it's own capability and detection range . The L-band is just give a capability which cannot be given easily in the X/Ku-bands .They can also embed the IFF there .

L band radars are not magic and have a few issues, but against stealth aircraft they also have a few advantages. Mixing the results from the nose mounted Ku and Ka band radar, as well as information from the IRST and thermal camera (likely long, medium and short wave IR are used) and you get a system that is harder to fool and produces much better information than any of the sensors could manage on their own.

Yes and they can track it also 60 years ago using their VHF radars but being a land based radar would give more flexibilty to increase the antenna size and provide enough power for it and using multible antennas with different wavelengths like the NEBO system .

Not even close. 60 years ago they had nothing like Container that can detect and track low flying low RCS targets thousands of kms away... NEBO is something different... it supports large SAMs and does not have a dead zone of 900km in front of it where it can't detect anything... NEBO has to detect targets in close and out to decent ranges to do its job...

I guess the same , from 2009 to now it should be fully tested and matured .

The wing mounted systems in the Su-35 are designed for detecting stealthy aircraft and were part of the system designed for Su-57 because that is what it does.... hunts F-22s and F-35s and B-2s.

Putting radar antenna in the wingroot of a fighter plane complicates the design and costs money... I don't think they would bother if it didn't work or show promise to eventually become effective.

It is not about peak power... American stealth aircraft are stealthy in a narrow frequency range only...

The land based L-band NNIIRT Protivnik GE with 8.5 x 5.5 m array , has a 500 KW of peak power .

As per Rosoboronexport , it has a detection range 240 km of a target that is 1.5 sq.m of RCS at height 5km .

And as per NPP pulsar the L-band wing based radar on Su-35 has a nominal power of 200 WT (200*12= 2.4 kw per array and 4.8 kw for both arrays ) .

Numbers talk , the limitations of cooling system and array size would limit it's total peak power to detect at high distances . I'm not talking about the detection itself but the point from working against stealth targets is to detect it out of it's BVR missiles otherwise they will take the first shot .

Also apparently  they are using conduction cooling to the airframe structure instead of liquid cooling,  which would limit the average power for the TR module.

I'm not saying it's useless ,actually it's brilliant idea but saying it will detect the a stealth target like F-22 from 266 km means a very revolutionary tech for modules power and cooling design and also means the stealth became completely useless , at least they would officially include it on the SUKHOI website.

The land based L-band NNIIRT Protivnik GE with 8.5 x 5.5 m array , has a 500 KW of peak power .

As per Rosoboronexport , it has a detection range 240 km of a target that is 1.5 sq.m of RCS at height 5km .

And as per NPP pulsar the L-band wing based radar on Su-35 has a nominal power of 200 WT (200*12= 2.4 kw per array and 4.8 kw for both arrays ) .

The Protivnik radar will scan a huge portion of the sky with its big antenna. The radar on su-35 will scan a much smaller area.

Power is linked to how you concentrate your beam.

With a 2 kW radar concentrated into a small cone of detection like on most x radar in the fighter's noses you can spot a target much better than if you use a 500kW scanning for half of the sky at once...

Isos wrote:

The land based L-band NNIIRT Protivnik GE with 8.5 x 5.5 m array , has a 500 KW of peak power .

As per Rosoboronexport , it has a detection range 240 km of a target that is 1.5 sq.m of RCS at height 5km .

And as per NPP pulsar the L-band wing based radar on Su-35 has a nominal power of 200 WT (200*12= 2.4 kw per array and 4.8 kw for both arrays ) .

The Protivnik radar will scan a huge portion of the sky with its big antenna. The radar on su-35 will scan a much smaller area.

Power is linked to how you concentrate your beam.

With a 2 kW radar concentrated into a small cone of detection like on most x radar in the fighter's noses you can spot a target much better than if you use a 500kW scanning for half of the sky at once...

The difference between a stealth plane scanning for a conventional one with its onboard X band radar would operate in a conventional way: it scan a large area first once it get some result perform a narrow scan one and begin to track it , all of this  transitioning smoothly from one phase to the successive until it get all the data it need to engage it.
I expect instead that in the opposite case they would need a consistent amount of time and a less linear shifting from alet's say the first wide area scan made with the L-band radar to the fine tracking necessary to effectively engage the stealth opponent.
So, one plane would made it in a single stage, the second would perform a series of successive searches receiving just a part of the necessary data from each of them.
So the L -band in wide search mode would detect the stealth plan at fair distance but would get just a general idea of where is it, so it would need to made a second one in a narrow mode to refine such location and begin a preliminary tracking, after it would pass it to the nose band radar in the x -band that would have to perform a second search in the delimited space in which the former radar has recognized the presence of a stealth plane and keep on narrowing it until it get an enough precise location and finally going to the fine tracking necessary to engage it.
So, in the end it would need more time to get to the same (or better said a comparable, as I still expect it would need to use a greater portion of its own search power to engage simultaneously a smaller number of targets at the same time) result but it would get it anyway.
So the presence of two radars is IMHO
absolutely necessary: the L band one assure the capacity of wide area search and an early detection range even superior to the one of the stealth plane own radar, the X band one the fine tracking capabilities necessary to effectively engage it.

Still, I think that the Stealth one would reach the condition necessary to launch its own missiles before of the other.

BUT not the necessary distance to do it with an effective chance to hit anything.

I'm not saying it's useless ,actually it's brilliant idea but saying it will detect the a stealth target like F-22 from 266 km means a very revolutionary tech for modules power and cooling design and also means the stealth became completely useless , at least they would officially include it on the SUKHOI website.

KVS posted above this:

The expert named the ranges at which the Russian fighter of the 4++ generation Su-35, equipped with the Irbis radar station, can detect the American fighter of the 5th generation F-22 Raptor. According to Leonkov, the latter will be visible at a distance of 266 kilometers, as a result of which "it will not be able to launch its AIM-120D missiles at a range of 180 kilometers unnoticed." wrote:

Though he did post it in Russian language.

What he is saying is that Irbis detects the fighter... the wing mounted L band AESA elements are not able to track targets, they are used to detect things not easily spotted by a casual scan at a higher frequency... which would alert the pilot and the system to the presence of something being there that is stealthy and worth a high energy look... which the Irbis should be perfectly capable of doing...

Note if you look back at post 110 you can see you asked if it was 266km for the L band radar and you will also see I responded with pretty much what I am saying now....... again...

Still, I think that the Stealth one would reach the condition necessary to launch its own missiles before of the other

The L band would be used to locate the stealthy target... obviously supported by rather large ground based radar than could track F-35s on borders of countrys thousands of kms away for instance... minimising the amount of scanning needed with the rather more powerful nose mounted radar if needed for a more precise fix (a ground based system could also get a more precise fix too meaning the fighter just needs to launch their missile...

Note they have mentioned the new Air to Air and Air to Ground missiles for Su-57 include new types of seekers... an R-37M replacement with an IIR seeker and datalink could easily be used to shoot down stealth fighters from well outside the range Ka and Ku band radar would be effective...

Here is another Indian -in fact, more than never, Russian ;-) -solution. Most of the Indian software and hardware is of Russian origin.



Martyanov said that since the radio photonic radars are available in Russian, there is no way for any stealth aircraft in the world to hide. Now Russia is at a step forward, they are working to embed the radio photonic radar inside the SU-35, SU-30, and Mig-35. It is a new era, now nothing can threaten Russia.

Has someone seen this crap from The National interest ? Now thay wrote that F-35 COULD STOP almost anything "when it comes to deterring or destroying any kind of Russian attack across Eastern Europe has been changed in a profound and measurable way given the amount of arriving F-35s" or "if necessary, quickly launch a massive fifth-generation air assault into Russian airspace instantly should that become necessary." Is there anyone left with some kind of brain in the West ?


Could European & US F-35s Save the Baltics from a Russian Invasion?

F-35s are taking to the skies all over Europe. That paints a new picture when it comes to any ability to deter or destroy Russian forces from the Baltic Sea.
A quick look at a map of the Baltic Sea raises new possibilities for U.S. and NATO allied Air Forces in Northern Europe. It's all thanks to the rapid arrival of new Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets.
Just last year, Denmark received its first F-35, Norway conducted F-35 training missions, the Royal Netherlands Air Force declared its F-35s operational. Poland increased its F-35 force, U.S. and UK aircraft carriers and surface ships conducted joint-F-35 missions, and Finland and Switzerland recently chose the F-35 for their air forces as well.

All of these events, unfolding over just this past year, paint a new picture when it comes to any ability to deter or destroy Russian forces from the Baltic Sea. This concentration of F-35 power in Northern Europe introduces the possibility that the United States and its allies could, if necessary, quickly launch a massive fifth-generation air assault into Russian airspace instantly should that become necessary. Not only does Finland share a border with Russia, but the Russian coastline and the Baltic states border the Baltic Sea as well. This places Russia easily within the combat attack radius of F-35s from Poland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and possibly even the UK. This tactical reality, greatly enhanced by the F-35's multi-national Multifunction Advanced Data Link connecting all F-35s, does not even take ocean launched F-35s into account. U.S. and allied amphibious assault craft or even aircraft carriers could also launch F-35s from areas in the Baltic Sea as well. This possibility may have been part of the thinking this past year when U.S. and UK F-35s conducted nearly 1,300 sorties together to improve readiness, interoperability, and warfare preparations. As part of this exercise, the UK Royal Navy’s HMS Queen Elizabeth launched F-35Bs from both the US Marine Corps and Royal Air Force.

“Nine nations have F-35s operating from a base on their home soil, 12 services have declared Initial Operational Capability and six services have employed F-35s in combat,” a statement from Lockheed Martin on F-35 activities in 2021 said.

The rapid arrival of new F-35s has brought new dynamics to play, which have been documented in a widely read and quoted 2016 Rand Corporation study called “Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank, Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics.” The published report, emerging from extensive wargaming, made the determination that the Baltic states would be quickly overrun by Russian forces in the event of any invasion. The study recommends that the Pentagon substantially reinforce its combat presence and forward-deployment activities in the region.
“The games' findings are unambiguous: As presently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Fortunately, it will not require Herculean effort to avoid such a failure. Further gaming indicates that a force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades—adequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities—could suffice to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” the study’s abstract states.

However, what about considering this 2016 assessment in a 2022 context? In 2016, there were not as many F-35s operating in Northern Europe as there are today, by large margins. Would the proximity, access, and lethality of a nearby multi-national F-35 force change this equation? The quick answer: absolutely. Russia does not operate as many of its own Su-57 5th-generation aircraft, which may not even compare to F-35s in terms of performance. Consequently, a dispersed, networked force of U.S. and European F-35 launched from the air and sea would be very well positioned to slow down, stop or even destroy a Russian ground invasion of the Baltics by quickly establishing air superiority. The strategic circumstance when it comes to deterring or destroying any kind of Russian attack across Eastern Europe has been changed in a profound and measurable way given the amount of arriving F-35s.

Right. They bomb Russia with their F-35s and Russia replies with missile strikes against which they will have little defense.
That is assuming the F-35s won't be intercepted which they likely would be.

TNI is typical US clickbait.

Russia has multiple overlapping radar networks which will vector Russian fighters into the area the F-35s are in. NATO has more airplanes on paper than Russia but F-35s require extensive ground handling facilities which can be targeted. If I was the US I would be more concerned with the modernized MiG-31BM than the Su-57. It can fly at twice the speed of the F-35 and has a huge radar with longer range missiles than the AIM-120D.

Some Serbs seem pro russian to me.

TMA1 wrote:Some Serbs seem pro russian to me.

Not some but most of them because Belgrade (as well as Serbia) was bombed on three occasions just in the past 20th century. We Serbs are christians but orthodox christians, as well as Russians, and that is the main reason why are we so "beloved" in the West. They (West) always saw a "little Russia" in Serbia. Belgrade was shelled first in the First word war and captured by Germans, Belgrade was bombed by the Germans in 1941 and in 1944 the city was devasted again from the Allies, because Germans were still in the city. Then NATO agression comes in 1999 (first military mission of Bundeswehr after Second world war) and city was in pain again.  
But dont forget one thing and that is that Serbia had bloody battle in 1389 with Turkes and after that battle the bells rang even on french Notre Dame catedhral in Paris. Yes, Serbs have lost that battle but thay have also stopped further advance of Turkish army (Ottoman Empire) in the West.

"which may not even compare to F-35s in terms of performance."

Atmosphere wrote:"which may not even compare to F-35s in terms of performance."

Yes, its like comparing Porsche 911 GT2RS (Su-57) with my diesel powered Audi A4 (F-35).

1: Italy LOVES Russia. (And is very much loved by the Russians).

2: the only thing that the F-35 can stop right now is the economic budgets given the costs of those nations that are using it.

)

tanino wrote:1: Italy LOVES Russia. (And is very much loved by the Russians).

2: the only thing that the F-35 can stop right now is the economic budgets given the costs of those nations that are using it.

)

Believe it or not i am a supporter of Italian national football team since early childhood. Of course when Italy doesnt play game against Serbia. Of course we are not fans of german or english football national team. France standts better than Germany and England but not even close to Italia.
If you are from ITALIA i will write just one thing and you will know what i mean; ITS COMING TO ROME !!!!!

tanino wrote:1: Italy LOVES Russia. (And is very much loved by the Russians).

2: the only thing that the F-35 can stop right now is the economic budgets given the costs of those nations that are using it.

)

introduce yourslef pls here:
https://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules

Podlodka77 wrote:

tanino wrote:1: Italy LOVES Russia. (And is very much loved by the Russians).

2: the only thing that the F-35 can stop right now is the economic budgets given the costs of those nations that are using it.

)

Believe it or not i am a supporter of Italian national football team since early childhood. Of course when Italy doesnt play game against Serbia. Of course we are not fans of german or english football national team. France standts better than Germany and England but not even close to Italia.
If you are from ITALIA i will write just one thing and you will know what i mean; ITS COMING TO ROME !!!!!  

introduce yourslef pls here:
https://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules