maurobaggio[QUOTE]Originally posted by ActionJackson
I actually pointed this out specifically in one of the deleted PAK FA threads.
Joe posted multiple pictures of one of the radar component foundries from when a politician did a site visit.
I posted details of all the machines photographed and they were extremely old systems produced by European manufacturers.
With no domestic ability to produce the machines to make components and combined with sanctions for dual use equipment, Russia has no ability to mass produce truely modern EASA radar components. [/QUOTE]
I am agreed with you, but they say that sanctions only works in absence of the gold metal, if the gold metal are in the environment such strange( not fully understand) effect will happen with the sanctions, that could made this last one almost invisible.
In fact the production of T/R modules from radars AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) has been carrying out in Russia since that Ka-27M naval helicopters has been received the multi-mode (land, naval, air) AESA FH-A radars.
The Ka-27M are the modernized version from Ka-27PZL naval helicopters, the first 08 prototypes had been delivered for testing by the Russian Navy in 2016, and serial production of a total of 46 Ka-27M were approved in 2017 , then the first deliveries happened in 2018.
Ka-27M
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index…elicopter.html
While about the Russian option for the Passive Electronically Scanned Array (PESA) N035 Irbis-E radar in the Su-35S has been certainly resulted from several technological and doctrinal factors, due to these factors the main aspect has been about the N035 should be an antenna PESA assembled on a 3D mechanical system in order to allow the PESA antenna to obtain such sweeping with an wide viewing angle, which could not have been possible at the time with the AESA technology available for the radar AESA Zhuk-AE from MiG-35 since 2007. That Zhuk-AE had been showed with fixed antenna, perhaps in function of the weight and dimensions of the T/R modules in this time.
In any case, the N035 Irbis-E radar from Su-35S has been certanly improved in relation over the already established concept of the PESA N011M Bars radar that has been also produced for the Su-30SM from Russia.
Still, the Su-35S has been equipping with two secondary radars with T/R modules AESA in L-band since 2009, such Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radars are assembled in the leading edge flaps with primary function of the IFF( Identification Friend Foe). In reason of this Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radars the N035 Irbis-E has been equipped with only PESA modules in X-band.
There many doubts that intrigues many with respect to the N036 radars from Su-57, since in fact the Su-57 has been received five radars (two side way in the X-Band, two in the in the wings with L-band and the main radar in the nose with 1552 modules). So 04 of these are fixed, but the main radar in the nose could have been assembled with 3D mechanically system , in that case the antenna with T / R modules should have been equipped with GaAs T/R modules, in the same away of the Captor-E AESA radar from Typhoon and the ES-5 AESA radar from Gripen NG.
However, some reports that the N036s could have been assembled all with antennas fixed antennas, in this case such possibility that N036 will be equipped with more powerful GaN T/R modules that should be available in Russia today with GaAs technology. So the technology from GaN modules demands has been demanding more quantity from coolant , in reason of that it has been making the antenna heavier and less compact that could have been obtained today with modules in GaAS, this obstacle could have been preventing these antenna with GaN modules assembled with mechanically system.
Maybe the N036 radars from Su-57 prototypes has been receiving T/R modules in GaAS, however this could have been an alternative to avoid some delay in the development from Su-57, as well as in the case of the Al-41F1 engine that has been used until the new Izd.30 engine will be ready for full trials.
maurobaggioWHAT HELL HAPPENED HERE?!
WHERE IS TANGO III?
About news: There are unconfirmed reports that Venezuela has been activated one battery S-300VM (SA-12 Gladiator) near the frontier with Brazil in order to avoid the possibility that US transport planes could launch humane aid near the border between Brazil and Venezuela. The USAF has been equipped with pallets controlled by GPS that when it are launched at high or medium altitude, with the aid of air currents, the same could descend with great precision in pre-defined places inside the Venezuela territory .
Certainly this would be quite remote possibility for the USAF to carry out this type of mission.
I’m so sorry if I did not find a link with this news, after all I am not Tango III.
maurobaggioIn fact the Stealthflanker has been correct in all aspects in my opinion, just point out some details: all versions of MiG 31 (Dz / B / BS / BM / BSM) that had been come into operation with 04 semi-conformal compartments on the belly from MiG-31, all those compartments has been equipped with a hydraulic bracket called AKU- 410, which removes the R-33 SARH ( semi-Active Radar Homing) missiles from these compartments in order to release it for ignition of the propellant of these missiles.
The R-37M ARH(Active Radar Homing) missiles should have been compatible with the MiG-31 compartment as well as the AKU-410 system. Therefore, 04 R-37M could have been used by MiG-31 (Dz/B/ BS/BM/BSM).
While the MiG-31M prototypes were equipped with the AKU-610 system and 06 compartments on the belly, in which case the MiG-31M would have been capable of using up to 06 R-37M missiles.
In this way it would not be reasonable to perform such drastic modification in the internal configuration of the MiG-31BM / BSM in order to introduce two new compartments and the AKU-410 or AKU-610 device to increase the amount of R-37M missiles to 06 units.
However, there could be another possibility for the MiG-31BM / BSM, until 2009/2010 the MiG-31 had been used two heavy R-40 (AA-6) missiles on the internal wings supports, so an alternative could be use the R-37M in this position too.
Actually, there are none mention or even picture from R-33 missiles has been carried by the MiG-31s on these wing supports, but with the dissemination of MiG-31BM images has been using R-77-1 (RVV-SD) missiles, as well as in the past the MiG-31M with the R-77 (RVV-AE), this would be at least one possibility, since the R-77 missiles use the method of releasing and subsequent ignition of the propellant, in the same way as the R-33 and R-37M.
AFAIK there are not details revealed from R-77-1 with the MiG-31 , so it is not possible to say that the R-77-1 could have been fired with the MiG-31 above Mach 2 like the: R-33 , R-37, R-40 and Kh-58U(anti-radiation). Both R-40, Kh-58U (ASM), R-60 and R-74 are fired while on rails.
Today there are not evidence that RVV-BD (R-37M) has been in production or operation, but tomorrow this may change as the SAM BUK M3 with ARH (active radar homing) missiles are already in operation with the Russian Army . In the early 2000s such version of the SAM BUK M1/2 with ARH missiles had been offered with the radar seeker derivative from R-37M
Perhaps the most important point should be that the R-37M missiles could have been put into operation with the Su-35S and Su-30SM today, in addition with the MiG-31BM/BSM.
maurobaggioThanks Paraly for the schematic drawing of the R-37M (RVV-BD) and the new Izd. 810 inside in the Su-57.
In fact there are several mentions that the R-37M (RVV-BD) could equip the Su-57, however there are some aspects that should have been considered about such mentions, since there are not confirmation that the R-37M will enter in production to equip the MiG-31BM, as well as details of this version of the R-37M that has been testing for several years, after all this new version would be an improved and lighter version of the R-37M
The R-37 had been designated as Izd.610 in the 1980s, just as the R-37M came in 1997. So this supposed version of the R-37M should have been received such new designation to avoid some confusing with R -37M from the 90s.
Perhaps the central point should be that the R-37 had been developed for the MiG-31M, and it did not go into production and as well as its program were canceled in 1994. Since then it has been mentioned that second generation that emerged in 1997 as R-37M would equip the MiG-31BM, modernized version of the MiG-31B/BS, which in fact so far has not been realized after all these years.
Thus it seems nebulous that such third generation from R-37 would have been tested to equip the MiG-31BM, and in reason of that could equip the Su-57 until the development of Izd.810 will be complete in the near future , after the Su-57 were into serial production.
Due to those details such possibility is: it would not be the R-37M that has been completing the final trials phase, but the new Izd. 810, since the beginning of the PAK-FA program in 2002, the PAK-FA has been expected to be equipped with a new long-range air-to-air missile. The R-37M program could have been revived even years 2000 to serve as a basis for the development of the new Izd.810, just as the R-37M final trials would be mentioned now to obscure the new Izd. 810.
maurobaggioThanks for the very interesting information made available in your post about the JA-37 Viggen.
In fact, the JA-37 Viggen were among of the highly advanced fighters in the 80s, since the JA-37 had been described as the most advanced fighter in production from Western Europe in the 80s too, and this mention was never really challenged even in Europe.
There are several reasons that could have been restricted the sales of the JA-37 (second-generation AJ-37) for others countries, among those: the high cost of acquisition and operation of the JA-37, such lack of political weight from Sweden and particularly the restriction imposed by the United States who had provided many advanced technologies used by the JA-37. In fact, there were rumors that even nations that had obtained U.S. approval in the 1980s to receive F-16A/B/C / D, but the same nations were not given permission from U.S. to buy the JA-37 from Sweden.
This latter fact may seem like an urban legend nowadays, but the United States had such strong interest in strengthening indirectly the Sweden, since the neutrality of the same could not have been questioned by the former Soviet Union, so in the case of JA-37 Viggen should have quite important mission for NATO in case of war against the Soviet Union: to block the fly of the Tu-22M2/3 across the Sweden territory for both naval attacks on the North Atlantic or ground attacks in the United Kingdom and northern France against the OTAN.
Then JA-37 had been the second generation from AJ-37, as well as the AJ-37 were able to perform intercept missions or ground attack through the changes of the modules from radar system in the own air bases during the refueling and rearming between missions, however the AJ-37 had not been capable to use BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missiles.
Therefore JA-37 has been described as an interceptor with a secondary capability to attack ground targets as the same manner of the F-15C / D, however JA-37 had been completely redesigned in relation to AJ-37, as well as the JA-37 were equipped with more advanced avionics and weapons.
Just as important as the new electronic items and weapons introduced in the JA-37 , it had been increasing in its maneuverability over the AJ-37. In fact the JA-37 received a new reinforced structure with parts in titanium and carbon fiber, so that had been increased the structural limit at the 12G, as well as the increasing in rudder height and elevons on the wings from 03 in the AJ-37 to 04 in JA-37. Another important change were the use of a Fly-By-Wire system in the JA-37.
The T / W ratio has been very close to 1, since the JA-37’s empty weight (12,500 kg / 27,558 lb) and maximum thrust power (12,000 kgf / 26,455 lbs) that actually puts it in the same category as the 4th Generation fighters.
Overall, the JA-37 has been described as 9G maneuverable fighter, while the AJ-37 would be in the 7G category.
maurobaggioI do not know if I’m on the same page from UCAV that has been derived of the YAK-130 and it were mentioned here by others, maybe I’m quite outdated by now , but AFAIK the UCAV from Yak-130 has been originally proposed to replace the Su-25SM when it should be withdrawn from service.
The idea of replacing the Su-25’s with an attack version of the Yak-130 had been proposed since the end of 1990s. However, the VKS had rejected the proposal around 2010, since the Yak-130 would have not been capable to receive the armored cockpit ,due to the weight , for the crew as it exists in the Su-25, and even in the Su-34 that allow these flying in ultra- low altitudes over hostile territory.
The Yakovlev made then new proposal in order to eliminate the armored cockpit through the transformation of the Yak-130 into UCAV, in this case the pilots does not need to receive any protection because they will not be in the aircraft.
Apparently this idea had been partially accepted by VKS, however the VKS would prefer this attack version from Yak-130 should be an UCAV, but also it would have been equipped with single seater for pilot if necessary in reason of the mission, in this case this version of the Yak-130 could be: controlled for ground station through datalink by the pilot, the capability to perform some missions autonomously without ground control, as well as it to perform missions with the pilot in the cockpit.
This attack version from Yak-130 could have been used also in training missions instead only to replace the Su-25SM, in this case being a single seat version of the Yak-130 seems quite bizarre the training function, still only the student would assume the cockpit while the instructor would have been comfortably controlling the aircraft from the ground station just like if it were a UAV or UCAV, otherwise this ground station could have been used as simulator for the cadets when there were no fly with students, as well as this ground station could be transported for others places for forwards operations.
Perhaps the proposal of a UCAV has been derived from the Su-57 are in the same concept described above for the Yak-130, however this concept are not new in Russia, since the program of the Buran spacecraft had been provided that were capable to carry out unmanned missions or not , in fact the only mission of the Buran spacecraft were realized autonomously (without crew) in 1988.
Although the Buran program was a remarkable achievement for the space program not only of the republics from former Soviet Union, but also of space science around the world, it actually deserved a better fate than has been show in the website below.
maurobaggioPerhaps such possibility for the AKU support from R-33 missiles should have been removed for installation of the Kh-47M2 (Kinzhal) missile in the MiG-31BM has occurred to prevent these same AKU support could damaged the Kh-47M2 missiles, once due to a malfunction (electric, electronic or hydraulic) of the AKU supports these could have been activated either in flight or in the ground and hit the Kh-47M2 missiles in the central pylon, then to damage or even disconnect the missile from aircraft in flight or on ground.
Anyway, in my humble opinion I do not think that this removal of the AKUs from R-33 missiles has been definitive removed in reason of the Kh-47M2, so those same AKU supports could have been reinstalled in the MiG-31BM in the own air base for air defense missions , even though these MiG-31BMs has been especially modified to receive the Kh-47M2.
About the removal of the two pitot tubes of the MiG-31BM with the Kh-47M2, I think it was about time for the MiG-31 to shave itself, after all there are several pitot tubes in the MiG-31, however such possibility should be that: those two pitot tubes could have been creating little tiny turbulence during the launch( may be Mach 2) of the Kh-47M2 missiles, in reason of that could create at least such small misalignment for the missile. In fact the R-33s itself has been equipped with it AKU hydraulic support to move the R-33 of the air-frame from MiG-31 during the launch process, while the Kh- 47M2 does not have this feature.
These are just opinions from someone who would take an entire lifetime to notice that the two pitot tubes has been removed from the MiG-31BM with Kh-47M2 missile, in the first place.
maurobaggioThank you Austin for bringing this article about the X-47M2( Kh-47M2?), as wells as the good posts above at all, in special those from Bring It On.
The designation X-47M2 itself has been already a mystery, after all the suffix M in Russia could have been associated with a modernized version, whereas the number 2 after the suffix M would indicate this is a third version of the X-47 that has been currently tested with MiG-31BM. So the X-47 program could have been going on for several years until getting light.
While observing the video of the X-47M2 test, this show such lay out similar to the TBM( Tactical Ballistic Missile) Isklander, and this last one slight resemblance the tactical ballistic missile MGM-31 Pershing II from US, which was withdrawn from service due to agreements, but Pershing II has two stages, while in the video the X-47M2 at the time of impact seems to have a single stage.
In the text of the article the speed of Mach 10 are mentioned for the ammunition, perhaps this could indicate that the missile X-47M2 would be equipped with single stage rocket , however after exhausting its motor rocket at the apex of its trajectory the warhead and the target seeker will separate from the body of the missile and would be controlled by exhaust vanes instead fins, just like the ICBM with MIRV, after all the max range from X-47M2 has been described as 2,000 Km(1080 NM).
Indeed the Iskander has been equipped with MaRV( Maneuverability Rentry Vehicle) in the Russian version, that MaRV should increase the maneuverability against ABM( Anti Ballistic Missile) defense system as well as decreasing the RCS( Radar Cross Section) and Thermal signature, and increasing the range as well as the accuracy from Iskander .
In any way in the video the X-47M2 missile has hit the target integrally, may be the export version from Iskander has not been equipped with MaVR, may be in reason of restrict range for export versions about of 280Km( 151 NM), while in the Russian version from Iskander the max range could reach 700 Km( 378 NM).
In fact the idea about integrating missile ballistic missile whit fighters are very old, in the former Soviet Union there were an ballistic missile has been designed for the MiG-25RB that were not implemented, just like the MiG-31D that has been created for carrying ASAT missile(Ant Satellite) with construction of 02 prototypes during the 80’s .
During the 1990s, however, there were many references about: anti-radar, anti-aircraft and anti-ship versions of the Kh-15 (AS-16) missiles, but only versions equipped with nuclear warheads and inertial navigation had been entered in service on the late 1980s , and it has been removed from active for some time.
Despite much speculation that Kh-15s would equip the Su-34s, in fact the Kh-15s had been equipped only strategic and long-range aircraft until it were withdrawal from service with: Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Tu-22M3.
There are wide differences between Kh-15 and X-47M2 so far, after all the Kh-15 had been described with range of 300Km(161NM) and maximum speed of Mach 5, whereas the X-47M2 would have a reach of 2,000 km( 1080NM) and maximum speed before the rocket burn out in the apogee of this ballistic trajectory of Mach 10 , while it has been launched by the MiG-31BM, in addition to the maneuverability.
In my humble opinion I guess that t X-47M2 would have the SEAD (Suppression Enemy Air Defenses) mission against ABM and long range SAM systems, both ground and maritime.
In the maritime aspect the X-47M2 would have not been capable to sink a cruiser or destroyer, but incapacitate through hitting the radar antennas or air-to-air missiles silos with an active radar capable of mapping the ship before impact, the other possibility about the ‘light’ X-47M2 could have been used to saturate the air defenses, them to allow that heavy anti ship missiles: P-700, Kh-32, Onyx and Kh-41 to hit the targets, in the future the new hypersonic missile Zircon.
I have several doubts , the main so far should be: if the X-47M2 could have been capable with anti-AWACS function as it were proposed in the past for the Kh-15, after all the maneuverability of the X-47M2 could be more than enough to reach AWACS aircraft’s, and certainly several time better than Kh-15(AS-16).
maurobaggioI guess about the information available from RVV-BD (R-37M) it will equipping Su-57 (PAK-FA) first, since Su-57 could have been designed for the missions that were planned for the MiG-31M, instead it did not go into production the MiG-31M , once it were supposed to replace the MiG-25BM withdrawn from service in 2005.
Perhaps the MiG-31BM which has been modernized from MiG-31B / BS, it has taken over the missions from MiG-25BM. The MiG-31BM should have been capable the to launch the anti-radiation missiles Kh-58 and Kh-31P from MiG-25BM, so far there has not been any indication that the MiG-31BMs has received the R-37Ms, that were essential to the MiG-31M concept, as well as the R-77(RVV-AE) and R-77-1(RVV-SD) missiles.
Still such delicate issue with a long history, in poor resume: just around 1999 it were announced that the radar seeker ARH ( Active Radar Homing) from R-37 seeker had been offered to equip the SAM SA-11 / SA-17 (BUK M1 / BUK M2 ) missiles to replace or complement the SARH( Semi Active Radar Homing) missiles.
In fact, there were not indication of customers from ARH missiles from BUK M1 / 2, perhaps because the SA-17 (BUK-M2) were equipped with PESA radar that has been allowed each TEL to to engage 04 targets simultaneously with SARH missiles, while SA-11 (BUK-M1) each TEL could engage only one target with SARH missiles. Maybe should be more reasonable to purchase the SA-17 or upgrade the SA-11 for the SA-17 standard that to acquire ARH missiles to equip the SA-11 or even the SA-17.
However, now the situation are quite different, since the Russia Army and Navy has been receiving the BUK-M3 with ARH missiles, in this case of the Army each TEL can carry 06 missiles and simultaneously engage 06 targets, while in the BUK-M2 each TEL could carry 04 missiles and engage at the maximum 04 targets.
If the radar seeker from R-37’s were compatible with the SA-11/17( BUK M1/2) missiles, then it could have been possible to assume that radar seekers ARH from BUK-M3 can be compatible with the R-37Ms, and how the radar seeker from BVR missile has been the most complex and expensive part from ARH missile, then it would not be an obscene cost to put the R-37M in production to equip the MiG-31BM.
Otherwise could have been other option even less obscene that to put the R-37M in production, once it would be possible to modernize the R-33 with ARH seeker from BUK-M3. After all with the modernization of the MiG-31BM the legacy R-33 missiles with ARH seeker could become the weak chain without such modernization program to face new STEALTH threats( cruise missiles, fighters, bombers) as well as new modes of ECM( Electronic Counter Measures) from AESA T/R modules.
So far I did not received any substantial information that SARH R-33 missiles could have been modernized even at more advanced SARH mode, but it could be possible that at least such part of the R-33 would receive ARH seeker to deal with anti-AWACS mission, in that case the MiG-31BM should perform several missions that were designed from MiG-31M. Indeed such R-33 ARH would be less maneuverability that R-37M( Mach 5 from R-33 against Mach 8 from R-37M) , and with less range that R-37M, but the R-33 with ARH seeker could engage targets maybe with MiG-31BM at the 200 Km( 108 NM) while the R-33 with SARH seeker has been restricted at the 120 Km( 65 NM) .
Probably the RVV-BD will be more advanced over legacy R-37M, at least the radar seeker could have been capable to operate in two bands( X/Ka Band), while the radar seeker from R-37M were capable to operate only in X Band. Until the RVV-BD won’t become operational, maybe such version of the R-37M or R-33 with ARH seeker from BUK-M3 could have been implemented with MiG-31BM, at least the R-77-1 with MiG-31BM could give much better range that R-33 with SARH seeker.
maurobaggioAbout the possibility of such Russian version of the Indian BrahMos-A has been launched from air, while today Russia has been using the Yakhont / Onix ( Russian version from BrahMos) capable to be launched from the sea and ground , certainly such version from BrahMos-A could equipped the Su-30SM (Russian Navy and VKS) and Su-34 (VKS), as well as the Tu-22M3 (VKS) has been already equipped with the Kh-32 (modernized Kh-22) .
Despite that kh-32 has been capable with better range and more powerful warhead than the BrahMos-A, yet the BrahMos-A has been capable to attack its targets in flight profiles at low altitude following the terrain or sea-skimmer against maritime targets, while the Kh-32 has been restricted with dive attacks from high altitudes.
In this case, BrahMos-A could have been an option even for the Tu-22M3, in order to complement the Kh-32’s, since the Kh-32 has been keeping advantages at its greatest range and 1,000 kg/2,204 lb and at speeds above Mach 4.5 at the impacting against the target, otherwise the ultra-low flying profile from BrahMos-A should reach its targets at approximately Mach 2.5 and warhead only 500 Kg/ 1,102 lb, but it can use the terrain to hide from air defenses, or even the mode sea-skimmer against naval targets.
The Kh-32 has been equipped with rocket engine with liquid fuel propellant , which has been restricting its use in ultra low flying profile, due to the decreasing range in this profile, but the BrahMos-A has been equipped with ramjet (air breathing) propulsion which allows these such great range even at the ultra lows flying profiles
.
The Kh-32 (Tu-22M3) combination with possible Russian version from BrahMos-A (Su-30SM, Su-34, Su-35S and Tu-22M3) could give the Russian Air Force the same concept that has been already obtained by Kh-32( Tu-22M3) from VKS( Russia Air Force) in conjunction with the P-700 Granit (Cruisers and Nuclear Attack Submarines), Kh-41 Moskit (Destroyers) and Yakhont/Onix( Frigates and TEL) from Russian Navy, however the latter concept has been limited against targets within range of Russian Navy vessels and submarines.
Supersonic high speed above Mach 4.5 are such high advantage from Kh-32s, as well as that 1,000 kg/2,204 lb warhead that could penetrate deep into the target before detonation, so ensuring the destruction of hardened targets, however to achieve this capability the Kh-32 missile should dive from a high altitude against the target, which also increases the chance of being detected and intercepted by air defenses.
In ultra low flying profiles at the supersonic speed will be lower at the high air density for: P-700 with Mach 1.5, Kh-41with Mach 2.5 and Onix / Yakont / BrahMos with Mach 2.5. However, by following the ground against targets, or in the sea-skimmer mode against naval targets, those missiles could became more difficult to detect and intercept by air defenses.
In addition, the possibility that new Kh-50 subsonic cruise missile with 1,500 km/ 810 NM range could be introduced with Tu-22M3, Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S, certainly will give few creeps and nostalgic thoughts for everyone that could need think about that threats, after all this sensation has not been feeling since the end of the Cold War.
maurobaggioI think the water I drank yesterday made me hallucinate, since I thought I had already placed this post, just as it seems to be missing posts. Please if anyone has seen this post before let me know.
I’m a bit confused just like Deino too, since this seems a thread has been aimed at the China Aviation, and although in my opinion there are several good posts recently, despite that some posts should be missing now, but I did not notice much posts that it were mentioned China at least one time.
I guess that Y-20 doubts about what reason Russia has been equipped its news Flankers (Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S) with PESA radars, while China would have been equipping its J-16 ( evolved version from Su-30MKK) and the latest versions of the J-11B/D (evolution of the Su-27SK), in addition for its own J-10 with AESA radar is quite interesting.
After all China itself has been receiving its first 24 Su-35 with PESA radar N035 Irbis-E, otherwise if China does not want the N035 it could be possible to change for an AESA radar from China.
Otherwise such detail in common between Russia and China, both Russia with its MiG-29K fighters and China with its J-15 (evolution of the Su-33) has been equipped with mechanically steered slotted radars, then in both fighters neither PESA or AESA in this case.
The main reason from Russia has been equipped its new Flanker fighters (Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S) with PESA radars has already been mentioned by MSphere: that Russia would not have been capable to deploy an AESA radar.
But an AESA radar that could have been equipped with gimbals support ( mechanically steered) with movements into 2D or even 3D for the antenna, such as the PESA N011M Bars from Su-30MKI and PESA N035 Irbis from Su-35S, while that AESA radar like the Zhuck-A had been developed for the MiG-35 in the India’s MMRCA competition, once it were required the AESA radar with all competitors.
In fact the best explanation that I could find out so far about differentiating the advantages of an AESA antenna (PESA as well) mechanically steered for a fixed AESA antenna is this video from the Captor radar of the Typhoon:
Just to remember that radar AESA like: the APG-63V3 from F-15C/D , the APG-77 from F-22 and the APG-81 from F-35A/B/C , as well as the RBE2 from Rafale F3 has been equipped with fixed antenna.
Russia has recently developed the AESA radar N036 from Su-57’s with 3D mechanically steered antenna, as well as the new Captor from Typhoon and the Raven radar from JAS-39E/F, both fighters will also be equipped with AESA radars with 3D mechanically steered antennas.
Apparently the AESA radars has been developed in China are also equipped with fixed antennas, however China had been skipped the PESA generation as did the US with regard for the fighters. Otherwise France had developed PESA radar from Rafale F1 with fixed antenna, but with AESA radar in Rafale F3 with fixed antenna too.
In fact it has been agreed that AESA concept radars are more advanced than the PESA, but it is not such consensus that fixed antenna AESA radars are the definitive answer so far, even with the new GaN modules from APG-81, since now there are the radars AESA with mechanically steered antennas.
I’m pretty sure that I was not able to answer the question, however the idea that a PESA radar with mechanically steered antenna like the N035 Irbis or even the N011M Bars would have been simpler and cheaper to build than an AESA radar with fixed antenna, indeed in my humble opinion did not appear much satisfactory, since the PESA radar B004 from Su-34 has been equipped with fixed antenna like the N007 Zaslon from MiG-31B/BS/BM, once this solution with PESA B004 would be less expensive than such mechanically steered like the N011M Bars from Su-30SM/MKI
So the US itself while it were introducing the AESA radar APG-63V3 into 24 F-15C / D had been concluded that this would be simpler to build and maintain than the legacy APG-63 versions from F-15A/B/C/D with mechanically steered slotted array antennas .
The mechanically steered system from radars system are extremely complex items to build and maintain on fighters, as well as its weight and volume added for the radar and its own cost, then if were eliminated these can be a great advantage.
I have the opinion that radar like the PESA N035 from Su-35 should have the same complexity and cost from AESA radar with fixed antenna and T/R modules from GaAs, so I guess it’s more matter about the doctrine rather than a technological restraints from Russia.
I guess there are several differences in doctrine about the decision to equip such fighter with an AESA (or PESA) radar with fixed or with mechanical steering antenna, since the fixed antenna will reduces the weight and complexity of the AESA radar and could benefits the design of the fighter, but it will decreasing the angle of vision from radar.
So in the absence of aircraft like AWACS and ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), such radar with higher angle of vision has been provided by AESA and PESA mechanically steered would be an advantage.
The US has been called its own doctrine as ‘netcentric’, once it will employ wide use of ISR aircrafts, despite that all advantages from ‘netcentric’ concept, still it doesn’t mean that will work marble with everyone else beyond the U.S..Otherwise China has been working with its own doctrine that could be quite different from ‘netcentric’ from US.
maurobaggioIt was well noted by Y-20, however every air force has been keeping its own doctrine, just as AWACS has been extremely important and complex aircraft, often in peacetime these has been operating from few primary air bases, since it has complete infrastructure to support peacetime operations.
Due to political changes, these AWACS aircraft such as the A-50 could be in full readiness, so it can be moved to alternative air bases, or near the routes where AWACS should remain on patrol.
In both cases, those secondary or alternative bases could have been purposed to prevent an initial attack capable to destroy these important aircraft’s, as well as moving these to other bases should increased the number of AWACS missions due to the proximity of the patrol routes, yet it is possible to carry out refueling in flight, otherwise both the aircraft and the crew need to return the bases for maintenance and crew rotation.
In the case of the A-50 that uses the Il-76 platform, the fact that other bases has been operating the Il-76 would facilitates the A-50 operations. In cases of alert or even conflict it could be necessary only to move spare parts, tools and technicians that are unique to the A-50. In the same way there is no need for changes in runways or even in the air base to operate with the A-50 with safety.
In the documentary below there is a brief description of the Tu-126 and A-50 AWACS as well as its differences, then it started near from 40 minutes of the video almost in its end.
maurobaggioThe decision to use Il-76 (A-50) as an AWACS( Airborne Warning and Control System) platform has been already mentioned in this thread very well in several post above, still I will just remember those and add some others that should be important to observe in my humble opinion, once the replacement of the Tu-126 had been developed from airliner Tu-114 by A-50 were developed from military transport Il-76, indeed it were such radical change, so some points that favorable the Il-76:
The capabilities of the A-50( Il-76) to operate on air bases in remote parts of the former Soviet Union , since on these remote air bases the runways could have been covered by snow or sand, or even with the presence of foreign material that would be swallowed by the engines like the Il-86, in reason of the height in relation to the ground of those engines. In any case those air bases should have been considered little ‘civilized’ to receive airliners aircraft like:Il-62M, Tu-154 and Il-86;
Another important aspect were the standardization of the A-50 with the Il-76, since all air bases that has been received the Il-76 could support the operation of the A-50, since both technicians and spare parts (Il-76) should be available, while the introduction of another aircraft (Il-62M, Tu-154 and Il-86) as an AWACS platform would have been required the training of technicians and the need for stockpiles of spare parts for these types, as well as improvements maintenance and cleaning services of the runways.
Despite those aspect that favorable the choice of the military transport Il-76, still it should be considered others that could favorable the airliners aircraft’s( Il-62M, Tu-154 and Il-86) like those:
I guess that Il-86 were considered as an AWACS version too, since AFAIK the Il-86 could remain in flight for longer than the Il-76, then the Il-86 has been capable to accomplish ferry range of 8,300Km( 5,158mi)while Il -76MD would have been keeping 6,700km(4,164mi) among the sources that I could remember, still there are several sources with different numbers for both aircraft’s;
Apparently another important advantage the Il-86 over the Il-76 as platform AWACS should be the considerably smaller noise level of the Il-86( Il-62M and Tu-154) over the Il-76. As with the Il-80 (Il-86 military version), the noise level has been an important factor to consider also for an AWACS platform, since even with the use of datalink between the A-50 and the fighters.Still it has been necessary using voice command, and in the presence of high noise level both concentration required in the planning of actions and the transmission and reception of information by voice can be considerably impaired by the noise, since in prolonged exposure to intense noise it has been creating stress and fatigue for crew members;
Possibly one of the reasons for A-50 crew members that has been operating the radar system to wear helmets with suits has been observed in several videos should be the need to insulate from internal noise, in addition for the possibility of abandoning the aircraft with the use of a parachutes.
Otherwise another important factor in about the choices of the Il-76 over other platforms (Il-62M. Tu-154 and Il-86) should be the less need for changes in the design of the Il-76 for the A-50.
The AWACS aircraft such as: E-2, E-3 and A-50 has been considered high complex platforms. The installation of a large antenna such as the rotor-dome has been require a considerable increase of the structural effort in those aircraft’s, both by the static weight and the effort has been resulting from the aerodynamic drag of those in flight.
In general, any platform has been transformed into AWACS will require several important changes in relation for the previous cargo or passenger version of those platform.
Due to the installation of all electric and electronic components, as well as antenna and even the rotation systems for antenna, all these systems has been requiring such powerful cooling system, and most of these will be installed inside the aircraft.
The Il-76 had been designed to carry heavy loads, as well as its wide cargo compartment that could have required fewer changes to accommodate all those systems from A-50. Even the Iraq with little experience in the aeronautical sector in the 80s had been chosing the Il-76 to develop its own AWACS version, with the use of French radars.
An interesting feature of the A-50 is its interior when it has been compared with the E-3 Sentry, while the interior of the E-3 should be considered clean and functional as ‘NASA standard’, the interior of the A-50 has show such careless or improvised appearance in its ergonomics, once the operators of the A-50 has keep consoles next for shelves and instruments compartments.
This apparent improvisation inside the A-50 has been intended to increase the access to the instruments for maintenance, as the wide compartment from A-50 could provides better access for maintenance or replacement of components. In other aircraft (Il-62M, Tu-154 and Il-86) a large part of these instruments would have been located in the cargo compartment, while these has been limited useful space when compared to Il-76.
The AWACS aircraft has been keeping as universal characteristics such demand for high degree of maintenance requirements due to the complexity of its systems, as a result the choice of a platform that facilitates the maintenance working will contributes significantly to availability of the aircraft AWACS in time of peace or conflict .
The former Soviet Union had been developed two others smaller AWACS than the A-50, though it did not go into production with the end of the Soviet Union: An-71 and Yak-44.
The An-71 had been developed from the STOL transport An-72, which would equip the VVS (Soviet Union Air Force) frontal aviation, while the Yak-44 would be destined for AV-MF (Soviet Navy) to operate on aircraft carriers. The A-50s were operated by the PVO (Soviet Union Air Defense).
Anyway, even the An-71 also reflects several aspects of the A-50 in its design, so the choosing of the Il-476 as the A-100’s platform follows the same doctrine that in the past had made the choice of Il-76 for the A- 50.
maurobaggioI have found out the expression ‘red eyes’ for the Mi-28N crew in the article quite interesting, but in addition about what has already been mentioned regarding the capabilities from Mi-28N optical sights, I guess the another factor that has been counted for the ‘red eyes’ are the lack of the Arbalet radar from Mi-28N.
Iraq requested the Mi-28NE with the Arbalet radar while Russia has not made the same choice AFAIK, in fact Iraq has been extensive experience with AH-64A/D Apaches, although it was not very happy to remember in most cases, yet Iraq opted for the Mi-28NE with the Arbalet radar perhaps due to the results of the AH-64D witnessed by Iraq.
The Ka-52 are command and attack helicopter, while the Mi-28N are attack helicopter, in a classic combat scenario the Ka-52 with its long range radar would have been able to locate targets such as: MBT, IFV, APC, SPG , MRLS and attack them or bypass the target location through datalink for other attack helicopters such as the Mi-28N and Mi-35M.
In Syria from what I was able to observe the attack helicopters has been conducting many ‘free-hunters’ missions. It has been patrolling certain areas and attacking targets of opportunity.
As many of these targets are light vehicles such as SUV or small trucks the detection of these should not be easy for the optical systems available in the Mi-28N specially during the night, due to absence of the Arbalet radar should make it even more difficult than it has been occurring with the Mi-28NE from Iraq with Arbalet radars.
In this case, the Ka-52 with its long-range radar has been better able to locate the targets as well as maintain a long distance from the targets in case of MANPADS or AA before engaging the targets with their optics sights.
Anyway the second generation Mi-28NM has been equipped with radar over the main rotor, maybe this time the radar will come from factory for Russia.
I guess the expression ‘red eyes’ from Mi-28N’s crew could be because they can not blink of an eye over the territory of Syria, otherwise it will missing the targets or detect very close the enemy troops has been equipped with MANPADS or AA.
maurobaggioThere are some difference between the length of the runway for landing and take-off from fighters like the JAS-39 Gripen and the ride than it has been taken both on take-off and landing.
Track length has been always greater than it actually used by fighters, even for Gripen, since it has been required such safety factor.
Technical problems during take-off or landing, in addition for the meteorological issues, always it has been demanding such safety factor, as well as combat damage or emergency maintenance failures.
If I remember correctly from the Sweden concept from dispersed field operations, this had been established the need for a main track of 2,000m (6,250ft) with three to four satellite tracks of 800m (2,650ft) for the JAS-39 Gripen.
In this way it is possible to note that should be several limitations about weight from fuel or weapons load when the JAS-39 Gripen has been operating from short tracks of 800m (2,650ft), since there are main track of 2,000m (6,250ft) in the same air base.
Just like STOL transports the STOL fighters should have been restricted by some limitations while these has been located in airfields with short tracks.
Sign In
