FBWjust for the sake of info, no RBE2 is not advertised as a jammer. Jamming is performed by three AESA antennas on 360° on RAfale, aswell as on Typhoon (praetorian). REally nothing new about it….
That’s what I posted to lukos, I did want to look on THALES to see if there was any info for future upgrade. Being able to use the main array for jamming is sure to have it’s advantages considering the power output.
…… Thales does not claim jamming capability for the RBE-2, https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/de…def_bat_ok.pdf, with SPECTRA, may not need this feature
FBWI do not think that there has been much in the way of confirmation that the F-22 can use its radar in jam mode. And just to remind FBW and the other fans, the JSF is not operational.
Also, the ALR-94 was certainly hot stuff in its day in terms of ESM-like capability, and the ASQ-239 is also (no doubt) capable, the ROW has not been idle since the -239 spec was written.
Read the post, I didn’t say the JSF was… APG-77 EW upgrade- http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-latest-f-22-upgrade-brings-ability-to-jam-enemy-370192/
Btw, for Lukos, Thales does not claim jamming capability for the RBE-2, https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/aesa_rbe2_5_juin_val_def_bat_ok.pdf, with SPECTRA, may not need this feature. Also, APG-79 will, supposedly, get software upgrade for electronic attack.
FBWTricky but possible and there’s nothing to stop ground stations guiding aircraft missiles as well as SAMs, depending on how linked-up the enemy is. Obviously it won’t work if the enemy is the aggressor on neutral grounds because they won’t have ground-based SAM radar in the vicinity but in a local conflict, or a pre-supplied area, it’s a valid problem.
ESM is not ECM. AN/ALR-94 and AN/ASQ-239 are detection systems AFAIK.
It’s only unique if you’re the only one that has it. The F-22 and Rafale already have AESA jamming capability and so will the Typhoon by the time the F-35 enters service. Sadly, for 3 of the aforementioned, it can only jam on the frontal +/-60deg arc. It’s also ineffective at low band jamming.
Which ones can’t? Only one of the 4 above will have a more general cyberwarfare capability AFAIK but all can use their AESA radar to jam.
Not so much, it seems like the radar saw it from a good distance away, as could the destroyer’s radar (already discussed above). You will never have 100% SA and you may not be able to point the nose at all threats and there is a gap in low band jamming with the AESA. What’s missing is full 360deg wideband jamming and smart countermeasures if it all goes ****-up, which inevitably it always does at some point, sure as the sun rises and sets.
Well here (AN/ALR-94, and AN/ASQ-239 are far more than detection systems):
“BAE Systems’ AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda system is derived from the F-22 Raptor’s AN/ALR-94 EW suite and provides Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and high sensitivity electronic surveillance capabilities, full-spectrum situational awareness and multi-spectral missile countermeasures. According to certain sources, the Barracuda offers precise geo-location and targeting of potential hostile emitters, without the need for triangulation .and thus other networked aircraft. The Barracuda is also integrated with Northrop Grumman’s Communications, Navigation and Intelligence (CNI) suite data links for real-time data sharing as well as the APG-8.1 AESA radar, which is reported to have RF surveillance and jamming, in addition to cyberwarfare capabilities.
The technology refresh program is reported to be connected to the hardware modules only and will not affect the countermeasures systems and antenna arrays. The enhancements are reported to be introduced with aircraft belonging to Low Rate Initial Production 7, based on Block 3 baseline software and capabilities. To be applied to all F-35 versions belonging to American and international customers, work is expected to be completed by March 2018.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Presidential budget request, however, provides a deeper knowledge of F-35 EW suite, specifically the expandable countermeasures equipping the stealth aircraft. The description for air expandable countermeasures request by US Navy groups together “all unique countermeasures that provide self-protection for the JSF, specifically ALE-70, MJU-68, MJU-69 and CCU-168”. While contracts for specifically tailored MJU-68/69 flares and CCU-168 impulse cartridge have already been assigned to BAE Systems for the F-35, the Department of Defence for the first time unveils the existence of the ALE-70 expandable countermeasure. According to collected data on the same system, the ALE-70 is reported to be an RF towed decoy. In the latter case, the FOTD is to be driven by a technique generator on board the F-35, which could imply the use of an RF jammer”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Aircraft+self-protection+against+sophistication.-a0363687470
I’ll let others debunk the rest of your post with the exception of this:
“It’s only unique if your the only one who has it“,
exactly how many aircraft with AESA capable of jamming enemy radar do you think are in service right now? Hint, there’s not one typhoon with an AESA flying, and perhaps 2-3 rafale.
FBWIt’s also common for stealth aircraft not to have very good ECM suites because it’s considered ‘unnecessary’. In either Air International or Combat Aircraft Monthly I read that the B-52H’s ECM suite is miles ahead of the B-2’s IBM 286-based counterpart. Similarly, F-35s and F-22s don’t have high-technology towed or expendable decoys. Nor do they have 360deg jamming AFAIK. They can only jam using the AESA radar across the frontal +/-60deg arc
.
Other than the F-117 which had a rather austere avionics suite (can’t even find confirmation that it had RWR fitted), I’m not sure how you’ve made this conclusion. The F-22’s AN/ALR-94 and the F-35’s AN/ASQ-239 are perhaps the most sensitive equipment on those jets. You’re going to find very little hard information about their capabilities in this area. And this part,
They can only jam using the AESA radar across the frontal +/-60deg arc.
, as of right now, this is a pretty unique capability, no?
FBWNo, the T-50 carries the Kh-58UShE, which is 13.75 feet (419 cm) long.
Right you are. I had I difficult time finding dimensions of the new variant. I assumed it just had folding fins to fit
FBWKH-58 is almost 16 feet (480 cm) long. Compare the length of the R-77 at 11.8 feet on the rails. According to Aviationweek the KH-58 fits. The front bays are at least that long then….
http://aviationweek.com/awin/t-50-details-emerge-moscow-air-show
FBWLook at the time also, introduced 1964, the first few generations fighters didnt last long in service,
only by ~1970 had jets matured
Mig-25 went into production in 1969, the developmental prototype ye-155 flew in 1964.
FBWOk, that is a better argument, still a bit over fetched though as simply an upgrade of radar could have been enough to make it not flawed according to this line of reasoning. Also I think Balenko’s defection had a lot to do with the aircraft being replaced rather than upgraded so soon.
Yeah they tried to improve the radar with the RP-25M. The ambitious upgrade to the Smerch was a failure (see point #2 on technological over-reach), that was why the Mig-31 carries the RP-31 Zaslon. As for the rest of the short comings, they required extensive reworking of the airframe, hence Mig-31.
FBWIn this thread or last I posted a screengrab from a video playing at sukhoi pavillion at MAKS where it showed via graphics that they were indeed missile bays.
Thanks, this post correct? http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?124689-PAK-FA-thread-about-information-pics-debate-ⅩⅩⅢ&p=2063449#post2063449
This post has the clearest view of the hinges on the fairing. I guess I had dismissed those fairings as too narrow, but clearly there is a hinge.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?124689-PAK-FA-thread-about-information-pics-debate-ⅩⅩⅢ&p=2061803#post2061803
The t-50 bomb bays are very long relative with the AA-12, and wide enough to hold 3 missiles in each bay if the arragment is similar to the 22’s bay.
Anyway, these bays are meant to deal with larger payloads.
Perhaps, I’m looking at the width, gotta fit the ejectors and have clearance on either side of the bay. As a comparison, each side of the F-22 weapons bay are roughly 12.7 feet long, 2.9 feet wide, tight for three amraams (too narrow for them to fit without being staggered) . Either way, I want to see those Pak-Fa bays open soon.
FBWI think what is failed to be addressed is that the MiG-25 was a weapon. Some claimed it was a flawed fighter. According to what logic? That it couldn’t dogfight with an F-15 (which at the time of its induction couldn’t shoot the MiG-25 down either)? I would have to say that the A-7 can’t dogfight an F-15 either, does that make it a flawed aircraft?
I don’t think the MiG-25 pilot, would use his MiG in that way outside the scope and context of a test. I don’t think in any MiG-25 mission briefing, a bunch of pilots would say, hey there should be a bunch of F-15s at that location at that time, let’s mix it up with them.
The MiG-25 was a weapon. You plan to use it as it should be used and you try to play to its strengths. A MiG-25 can be quite disruptive for any enemy of the day. I would like to remind you that western missiles were marginally (on average) better or not that even back then. So taking that into account, the speed and weapons load of the MiG-25 made it another thing to be concerned with during operations.
Speed and long range kinematics of its weapons (at the time) would make it a threat for a number of operations. And you have to remember that you don’t actually have to kill the enemy to gain an advantage. You can simply ruin their plans or stop them from achieving their goals.
I think that makes it far from flawed, but rather …just right for the time.
I would defend the assessment of the Mig-25 as a flawed aircraft due to the following:
1. It was designed for a singular mission, deny access to Soviet airspace to high altitude/Speed bombers. It relied GCI to vector to target. Even though the RP-25 Smerch-A was powerful, it was very limited. The Mig-25 would not have been able to counter the low level penetration tactics of B-1B, F-111 lacking look down/ shoot down ability and inability to distinguish targets from ground clutter. So in essence, it would have been limited in it’s intended mission of protecting the USSR from strategic bombers.
2. It was limited tactically from performing any missions other than interception (besides reconnaissance, where it was a success, but different variant than the fighter). It’s range was short, it lacked versatility, limited types of weapons it could carry. I will ignore it’s combat record since other than GW1 and Bekaa valley, definitive proof of kill/loss ratio is spotty.
3. Most telling, the aircraft was being replaced in front line PVO units by the Mig-31 less than a dozen years after it entered service.
(P.S. flawed does not mean failure, the Mig-25 found usefulness as a recon bird. If you look at other examples I posted of similarly flawed western aircraft, they share one or more characteristics: 1. designed for a specific role or mission, when that mission changed/evolved, they lacked adaptability. 2. Technological over-reach, they were hampered operationally: too complex, mechanically unreliable, etc 3. short service life: they replaced in primary mission by more capable platform)
FBWOne thing I noticed is how the external carriage pictures seems to shrink the dimensions of the aircraft, it looks much larger clean due to large lifting surfaces. The external carriage pictures seem to confirm some speculation on the Pak-fa’s internal weapons bays. It would appear they are sized for 4x R-77 class weapons, unless the side by side bays are configured as one large weapons bay. I recall when the Pak-fa first appeared there were varying claims on the size of those bays. Others had commented on side bays for short range IR AAMs, I still don’t see those personally.
Has Sukhoi released any information on those internal bays?
FBWIf you read the other posts by that person-oldiraqiairforce @ f-16.net you can dismiss his claims as questionable to the extreme. But the claims for the Iran-iraq war dubious from most sources i’ve encountered. Doubt they are useful or accurate in assessing the success of the platforms on either side.
FBWI guess its safe to assume that, as far as this forum goes, the Mig25 is the most controversial aircraft out there. With the possible exception of the F-35.
Shouldn’t be, the Mig-25 was a flawed aircraft. The link i posted before gives some idea of how the paper performance of the aircraft failed in reality. It could not in fact reach Mach 2.83 armed with four missiles and had warnings about speeds above 2.5. It was limited to 2.2 g at full load and 4.5 overall. Not to mention pilots were warned about instability when manuvering flying high and fast. Yes the radar was powerful, but this was at a time when west was fielding pulse doppler with look down/ shoot down capability. The Mig-31 was a needed and vast improvement and apparently the VVS thinks highly enough of them to refurbish/ modernize them at a time where they are looking to replace other assets. The negative views of the Mig-25 don’t reflect some western bias, it was a flawed aircraft like the Mig-23. The west has had it’s fair share i.e.: f-102, f-104, tornado ADV, B-58. Not to say that these aircraft were failures, but flawed.
FBWThis is a good read and, ahem, informative on the Mig-25. Viktor Belenko and CIA assessment of the Mig-25p he flew to Japan in 1976.
http://www.testpilot.ru/review/mig_pilot/ch_7.htm
FBWhttp://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/chinese-air-chief-tells-lockheed-i-love-the-f-35/
Funny story, perhaps apocryphal, I’d be surprised if the Chinese air chief was that forthcoming about the propensity for the Chinese defense industry for reverse engineering military hardware.
Sign In
