I doubt Australia would be protected by the US unless it suited them to.

And this is based upon…….?

This article already implies that the Apg 77 can’t multi task; I will keep looking.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/16/221565/f-22-radar-test-supports-usaf-call-for-more-raptors.html

That article said no such thing. It said that a SAR mode was added, to increase the air to ground capabilities.

We forget Russia has access now to commercial computing. The Mig 29 etc were built with substandard chips resulting in inferior avionics. Not so today where there radar may use the same components to a large extent. The much vaunted Apg 77 can’t scan in multiple directions at the same time- the whole array moves as one; we know this from recent upgrade requests) so all told the russians with at least a 10 year advantage in later IOC may very well have similar capabilities. Adding to this the fact that the U.S has fielded many configurations ( B 2, YF 22, YF 23, A 12, X 36, X35, X32, F 117, Have Blue, Tacit Blue, X 46, X 45, ) and coupled with access to supercomputing ( a stolen Lockheed computer prediction RCS program) and there is very little reason why Russia could not build a competent stealth aircraft even without the U.S operational lead. That F 117 that crashed in Allied force had the same GPs stealth fairing as the F 22 (teaching aperture stealth design) and had 1997 stealth material having been recently upgraded so even russian materials science may not be far behind. Finally the nature of Russian stealth is considerably easier not having to contend so much with VHF as the Americans must given the Western preference for X band. Let us not forget the Russians can benefit from not repeating U.S mistakes and can avoid the tremendously costly research phase where many shapes, configurations and materials may not work but need to be verified. So the capability is there at a far lower cost than the U.S given the generous displaying of configurations and materials time has provided.

(http://www.infosecnews.org/hypermail/0010/2999.html)

-The APG-77 is an electronically scanned array, so I think you’re misinformed about it moving in one direction at a time.

-Which “mistakes” are you referring to?

-The F-117 and F-22 share no common shape, so I’m not sure what you meant by your statement. Are you referring to GPS? As for the RAM materials, the F-22 uses far more advanced designs than did the F-117. They’re far more robust, and easier to maintain, in addition to their other qualities.

-X band is for fire control. Russia and the West both have to contend with that, in terms of their targetting radars. Search radars use a variety of bands/freqs.

-Having access to components is one thing. Best utilization is something that comes from experience though.

That is an utterly facile argument- a favourite of that degenerate from ‘Planet Stupid’– you surprise me wrightwing. Comparing the virtually non-existant computing industry products of the USSR with that of the post-industrial revolution of the West in the 1980s is meaningless today.

Objective RMAF radar engineers’ analysis of Bars rated it higher than AN/APG-79 in ’03, hence Irbis capabilities can only assumed to be significantly better.

You are aware that the processors at the heart of Irbis & the active array derivative for PAK-FA are likely to be Intel or Toshiba? (not the obsolete ones in the F-22).

You are aware that the design/modelling/test software for PAK-FA (Russia’s 2nd ‘digital aircraft’) includes that by Siemens PLM (as used on SSJ100)? and NPO Saturn (engine) by Ansys (US)?

So tell me, what’s to stop PAK-FA entering service in the latter-half of next decade with an Irbis-based, GaN active array (COTS Toshiba-available today) AESA, with source-code written by Infosys (India)?

They very well may. My point is that it’s not a given.

As for the comparison of the Bars vs. the APG-79 in 2003- the APG-79 wasn’t even in service then, so how were they able to arrive at the conclusion of the Bars being superior?

Exactly. The Russians caught up.

Now this doubles my point, since the Raptor is also OLDER!

Radar tech wasn’t frozen in the 90s, nothing was procured. What is being developed now is going to be a whole new ball game. The APG-77″V2″ is the only thing that keeps the Raptor competitive in terms of avionics. Of course, with the current funding issues, and lack of real need, good luck to LM.

My point is that they caught up to 70s and 80s technology. They haven’t caught up to the APG-63(v) 2,3,4, APG-77, APG-79, and APG-81 though, much less the improved version of those sets that will exist in 5, 10, 15yrs from now.

No doubt, but the Russians aren’t going to stick with one radar for the T-50 either 😉

How many years did it take to develop radars that were the equals to the APG-63 or AWG-9? It wasn’t until the late model Zaslon, Bars, and Irbis came out, that the Russian fighters had comparable sets.

Evidence for any of that?

Considering you have no experience in building stealth aircraft, I will assume you are just pulling opinion out of your posterior.

If the Soviets could best the US companies before, there’s no reason it won’t happen now. The AL-41 in terms of raw performance will be quite superior to the F119. Just look at how long its taken to make the engine. The goal is 40,000lbs of thrust!

An AESA Irbis type will be significantly more powerful than any APG-77.

– List the # of successful production VLO aircraft that Sukhoi(or Mig) have produced in the past for them to build upon their experience

– The F-119 in its current state is already in the 39,000lb thrust class(possibly more), and methinks P&W isn’t sitting on their hands with regards to improvements.

– Evidence that the PAK FA’s radar will be superior to the version of the APG-77 in the 2016 time frame? You don’t even know its current capabilities, much less whatever upgrades come along, to make such an assertion.
Max power and range is somewhat irrelevant against VLO targets, as any engagement between 5th Gen fighters is gonna be at much closer ranges, than vs. 4th Gen types. The more power you use in emitting, the easier it’ll be for the ALR-94 to passively detect/track you at ranges far beyond any radar.

Just some food for thought. I’m not trying to be anti-Russian, but can you cite one example in the past where a Russian aircraft leapfrogged a Western one, on its first try? The Mig 29 and Su-27 were certainly very good aerodynamic performers when they were introduced, but it took them 15+yrs before they had comparable avionics.

It will dominate all aircraft, one way or another. It’s the most young project and will incorporate the absolute latest fusion of sensors and avionics, and even if it’s slightly less effective than an F-22 solo, which is up for debate, it will be cheaper knowing Russian tech – so a numerical superiority as we all know will dominate anyway.

It depends on the size of the numerical superiority, if it isn’t also technologically superior. Sukhoi(and associated subcontractors) are behind LM in stealth, engine, and AESA/avionics technology, so the likelihood of them leapfrogging the Raptor is slim(as it’s not going to be resting on its laurels).