T-72M1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
Su-30MKI - Super Sukhoi Upgrade Program.
- Thread starter Kompromat
- Start date
kaykay
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 8,933
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
All about current Su-30MKIs radar...
350km detection range, 200 km tracking range, 150-160 km tracking for a F-16....can act as mini-awacs etc etc
Mini AWACS : The Powerful "N011M" Bars Hybrid Radar System ( Su 30 MKI )
MKI radar comparision compared to other popular radars on other fighters.
http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/FA-22A-Radar-2005-APA.png
knight11
BANNED
- Joined
- May 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,572
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Are you sure about that ??
Ok leave the TVC hype or necessory, could you comment on the IAF love of the tantem seat configuration, because they also want that in FGFA.
randomradio
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
It's too early to talk about configuration when the discussions are still ongoing.
Quite sure, have too many copy pastes for that.
The tandem seat config is pretty useful to alleviate pilot loads especially if you are dealing with the prospect of long range flying or an aircraft that does not have an intuitive user interface that allows the pilot to carry out multiple tasks.
The USN tried keeping the F/A-18 F as a replacement for its F-14's because they wanted a their radar intercept officer configuration so they could keep their guys employed.
But as such, most air forces with the prospect of needing multirole combat and especially air combat, with today's advanced interfaces have opted for single seat types.
Air forces with much more developed modern combat doctrines than those like the IAF or even China.
randomradio
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
The thing with the tandem seat was the case earlier, especially with the MKI.
Now, it's much more than that. IAF wants a two seat FGFA for two reasons. One is battlespace management, and two, they need a second pilot to control swarms of unmanned jets.
Think about 4 FGFAs with 4 extra pilots who control a swarm of strike and recce drones along with unmanned FGFAs. The manned FGFAs provide all sorts of support to their unmanned counterparts, while allowing them to take high risk maneuvers.
I don't know why you say that. Both FGFA and AMCA will have TVC. Rafale's future with TVC is yet unknown because they are introducing a new 8.5 tons engine in a few years, but TVC for the Rafale is also bound to happen.
Apart from obvious maneuverability advantage, the TVC also helps reduce fuel burn and reduce drag at supersonic speeds. The advantages are enough to ensure TVC is to stay for a long time.
This configuration is obsolete. These figures are over 15 years old. The Bars has been heavily upgraded since then. The Russians have been trying to convince the IAF to get the Irbis-E upgrade for the Bars for some time now as the next set of upgrades. This is independent from the Super Sukhoi program.
The IAF has not released the ranges for the new configuration, but it's very high.
nana41
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
It's Mirage 2000 of IAF?.yep
Manindra
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 5,109
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Major Shaitan Singh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,550
- Reaction score
- 43
- Country
- Location
There are four primary and distinct types of radar carried by Flankers, each with distinct subtypes or block upgrade levels. In regional terms, variants of the baseline N001 series are most commonly seen, with the vastly more capable N011M BARS phased array now also well established in the region.
The Russian drive to improve supersonic persistence in the Flanker via supercruise class engines is clearly in a large part driven by this reality. In the bluntest of terms, throwing a spear from the top of a hill is always easier than throwing one uphill. An R-27EA with a range cited at ~70 nautical miles becomes a ~100 nautical mile class missile if launched supersonic from a superior altitude.
Electronic warfare between opponents remains a key consideration in long range missile combat. While high power aperture radars provide good burnthrough performance, at extreme ranges well in excess of 50 nautical miles burnthrough is unlikely to be a practical proposition. This is because the power ratings of conventional defensive jamming systems will be sized to defeat surface based engagement radars with power aperture performance well in excess of any fighter radar. A technique for suppressing a jamming source that is available to users of AESAs and hybrid ESAs is to put sharp nulls into the antenna mainlobe dynamically.
The use of the ESA or AESA to jam an opponent's radar is a proposition only where the opponent lacks the frequency agility in the their radar to evade jamming, and lacks an X-band anti-radiation missile which would benefit from the stable emissions produced by a jamming mode.
What does become a proposition for both sides is jamming of the missile midcourse datalink uplink channel to deny midcourse flight position updates after a missile launch. Historically the jamming of missile uplinks has been considered difficult and demanding of high power levels. This is because missile datalink antennas point in the direction of the launching aircraft, which means that what little jamming power can couple into the antenna must be carried by surface travelling waves along the missile airframe. With a high power aperture ESA or AESA such uplink jamming becomes feasible. However, both sides also have the option of coating their missiles with X-band lossy materials, which will diminish the coupling effect.
The reality for better or worse is that possessing radar detection and tracking range performance well in excess of missile kinematic range performance is unlikely to provide any benefit beyond very early warning of an inbound threat, giving the pilot the option of reversing and getting away, provided the opponent's radar and radio frequency surveillance systems are not good enough to detect the longer ranging radar. Increased fighter power aperture performance may increase its target detection footprint, but it also increases the opponent's passive detection footprint for the radar - the inverse square law of passive detection produces stronger effect than the inverse fourth power law of radar detection.
Tikhomirov NIIP N011M BARS
NIIP N011M BARS Prototype.
The BARS is the most advanced radar developed by Russian industry during the 1990s. It is unusual in being designed with a hybrid array arrangement, the receive path using very similar technology to US and EU AESAs, with similar sensitivity and sidelobe performance, but using a Travelling Wave Tube and backplane waveguide feed for the transmit direction, a technology closest to the B-1B and early Rafale EA radars. As such the BARS is a transitional design sitting in between Passive ESAs (PESA) and contemporary AESAs. There is no doubt this design strategy reflected the unavailability to Russian designers of the Gallium Arsenide power transistors used in Western AESAs.
The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. The antenna is constructed using phase shifter and receiver 'stick' modules, a similar technology to early US AESAs.
Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.
The BARS remains in production for the Indian and Malaysian Irkut built Su-30MKI/MKM variants. The radar is available with a range of TWT power ratings, this being the source of considerable confusion to observers who have not tracked this program since its inception. The result is a wide range of performance figures depending on the resulting Power Aperture Product. That the antenna has good power handling capability is evident in its adaptation for the Irbis E design.
Given the similarity between the Irbis E and BARS, existing BARS operators will over time effect block upgrades to convert their BARS inventories into the Irbis E configuration.
Q1. WHY N-011M BARS RADAR USED IN Su-30MKI CONSIDERED TO BE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PESA SYSTEM??
ANS- It is developed by Tikhomirov, a Passive Electrical Scanned Array (PESA) radar, thats what generally said. But looking at its scanning pattern I’ll say it’s more of a hybrid system that integrates the advantages of Mechanically Scanned Array and PESA system. Unlike other PESA system it doesn’t use same receiver amplifier for each TRM module, rather it has separate system like AESA. But in case of signal transmitting it uses single Oscillator of fixed freq…So you can say it’s a transition from common PESA system to AESA system.
Q2. IS IT A X-BAND OR L-BAND SYSTEM ??
ANS-Yes it is a X-band radar of 8-12GHz freq. As i already told you, it’s a hybrid system, so It incorporates the L-band, 1-2GHz IFF (Identification of Friend-or-Foe) system to improve the performance, and also an
N011-0M mechanically steered antenna system.
Q3. ANYTHING ABOUT POWER O/P, FREQ. BAND, SCANCOVERAGE ??
ANS- It can scan upto +/-70 degree in azimuth and +/- 45 degree in vertical axis, also it can be mechanically steered to +/-55 degree off bore-sight, thus giving the pilot a full +/-100 degree off bore-sight forward hemispherical coverage with 3dB noise figure same as an AESAR. It has 3 Indian made Ts-200 processor of 28GHZ speed with digital processing system and can perform 70million operation per second. Both static and flash memory are of 16MB size. The average power o/p each channel receiver is 1.2kw and 1kw illuminator for radar homing missile…so sum of all 3 channel receiver and target designator has power o/p of 4-5 kw.
Q4. GREAT AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MULTI-MODE RADAR AND HEY YOU’VE NOT MENTIONED THE RANGE EITHER ??
ANS- Air-Air mode: 15 tracked and 4 engaged simultaneously, 400Km search range, 200km track range, 60km rear tracking. Also in Air-Air mode it can do a Raid assesment and NTCR.
Air-Ground/Maritime strike: 15 tracked, 2 engaged, for tanks it
has detection range of 60km and for Naval ships or destroyers 90-120km. Features include Synthetic Aperture Radar Imaging(SAR), Doppler beam sharpening, real beam mapping and Ground/Maritime Moving Target Indicator(GMTI/MMTI). So it is perfectly suited for swing-role missions where you have no confirmation over the threats either they are ground threats or enemy air defence fighter. You can switch to any mode any time according to your mission requirements. And thats what make it Multi-mode system.
Q.5 Tell me about the Cope-India war game, How did MKI perform against USAF’s F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15 Strike Eagles ?? And also Indradhanush exercise with RAF.
ANS- In Cope-India war game with USAF and Indradhanus Exercise with RAF… IAF has instructed their pilots not to use the N-011M above training mode! Also MKIs lack an AWACS in their formation. So what happened
actually is every time they got
something in their radar…they
didn’t know it was a friendly or
Threat…because IFF system isn’t
online.(training mode) and before they could know it was a threat or friendly…it was Fox 2…Game over!!! But in dog fight they outperform the USAF F-16s and F-15s. I may say they beat the crap out of F-16s and F-15s. But The RAF Typhoon gives MKI a good run for its money.
Q.6 Ok…enough with these number games, tell me in simple english what’s N011M BARS PANTHER RADAR SYSTEM ??
ANS- Ok…in simple english…no tech words…”YOU TAKE THE ICINGS FROM VARIOUS DELICIOUS PUDDINGS AND MAKE YOUR OWN CAKE WITH THOSE ICE TOPPING”…voila you get a N011M…
Super MKI
Russian industry crossed an important milestone with the 2007 unveiling of Phazotron's Zhuk AE AESA radar for the MiG-35. In August, 2009, Tikhomirov NIIP were cleared to publicly display the new AESA developed for the PAK-FA, and also a clear candidate for Flanker retrofits.
Until recently, the principal impediment to the introduction of AESAs has been the unavailability of good Gallium Arsenide technology power transistors for use in AESA Transmit Receive modules. While global commercial GaAs production is of the order of 100 times greater in volume compared to military production in the West, there has been only modest non-military demand for this class of transistor to date. That is changing now with the US breakthrough earlier this decade in Gallium Nitride transistors, now appearing in second generation US AESAs, as these have been identified as an enabling technology for WiMax broadband networking.
As result the coming decade will see such devices mass produced for commercial users, making their export to Russian defence industry impossible to control. We are already observing Japanese manufacturers producing GaN transistors rated at 50 Watts in the X-band. The commodification of high performance 32-bit and 64-bit microprocessor chips is the applicable case study, since these are now appearing in a wide range of Russian military equipment designs.
The principal challenges Western designers have faced in AESAs have fallen into both antenna design, and integration. AESAs typically use A-class amplifiers to provide bandwidth and frequency agility, and the high linearity and low distortion required for sophisticated waveforms. The result is considerable power dissipation in the antenna, which is typically dealt with by liquid cooling using Poly-Alpha-Olefin (PAO) coolant. Some designs, such as the F-22A and F-16/B60, dump heat into the aircraft's fuel as a thermal buffer, and then dissipate it. Some designs will directly dump the heat into a heat exchanger.
Integration of an AESA into the Flanker airframe will not present difficulties, as there is considerable internal volume, large internal fuel capacity with potentially large cooling capacity, and electrical power to spare with the newer engine designs.
The large 0.9-1.1 metre diameter aperture provided by the nose and radome design will be especially attractive to an AESA designer. This aperture size permits around twice as many AESA modules of similar size to most current Western designs, apart from the F-22A Raptor APG-77 and F-15C APG-63(V)3/4, to be packed into the antenna.
The implications of this are sobering, insofar as with modules rated at half the peak power of the current state-of-the-art, such a radar could provide about the same peak power rating as current top end US AESAs. The Power Aperture Product would thus be higher due to the aperture area being so much larger. With COTS derived modules of much higher peak power rating than current US military GaN HEMT technology, a future Flanker AESA could have a very much higher Power Aperture Product figure, with significant counter-stealth potential.
In 2009 there were two principal candidate AESAs for installation in new build Flankers, or retrofit into existing service Flankers. These radars are NIIR Phazotron's intended Zhuk-AS/ASE, scaled up from the MiG-35 Zhuk AE AESA, and a derivative of Tikhomirov NIIP's new PAK-FA AESA, displayed publicly at MAKS 2009.
Both radar designs are based on the quad channel TR module technology first disclosed during the public release of the Zhuk AE. These X-band modules are now being mass produced on an automated line by NPP Istok, who are also planning S-band module production. Mostly Russian produced GaAs components are employed. Cited capacity is sufficient for 50 AESA radars annually.
Other than a stated intent by NIIR Phazotron to scale up the Zhuk AE, there are no technical details of this design available at this time. In a sense it is an analogue of the Raytheon scaling of the APG-79 AESA for the APG-63(V)3/4 upgrade (refer below).
Estimated detection range chart for variants of a Flanker sized AESA equipped with a range of Transmit Receive Module power ratings per channel. The detection range performance of the 10 and 12 Watt module equipped AESA is similar to the Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis-E hybrid ESA in the Su-35S, and much superior to the N011M BARS. The performance of AESA if equipped with modules rated above 15 Watts is superior to the Irbis E. Receiver noise figure and effective aperture area are assumed to be similar. N011M performance is based on parametric data and is better than NIIP cited figures (Author, 2008).
Modelling performed by APA in 2008, making some reasonable assumptions, such as an element count of ~1600 for the antenna provides a good baseline for a Zhuk AS/ASE as well as the PAK-FA AESA. This is detailed under the Zhuk AS/ASE analysis of 2008.
Enhanced stills from a Russian television broadcast reporting the Tikhomirov NIIP PAK-FA AESA design. Static display images of the antenna have a dielectric impedance matching screen installed, which obscures the actual TR module apertures (Vesti - Moskva via Youtube).
NIIP AESA on display at MAKS 2009 (© 2009, Miroslav Gyűrösi).
The Tikhomirov NIIP AESA design for the PAK-FA is better understood. The antenna aperture is very similar in size, if not identical, to the aperture of the Irbis E. The design is intended for fixed low signature tilted installation, rather than gimballed installation, and auxiliary cheek arrays are planned for. The design is claimed to have been integrated with an existing BARS/Irbis radar for testing and design validation purposes.
Public statements made in Russia claim 1,500 TR module elements. Counting exposed radiating elements on video stills of the antenna indicates an estimated 1,524 TR channels, with a tolerance of several percent. This is within 5% of the 2008 APA model for a Flanker AESA.
NIIP have publicly cited detection range performance of 350 to 400 km (190 to 215 NMI), which assuming a Russian industry standard 2.5m2 target, is consistent with the 2008 APA model for a radar using ~10W rated TR modules, which in turn is the power rating for the modules used in the Zhuk AE prototypes. This puts the nett peak power at ~15 kiloWatts, slightly below the Irbis E, but even a very modest 25% increase in TR module output rating would overcome this.
There are distinct differences between the AESA displayed by NIIP for Vesti, which has less depth and uses circular radiators, and the examples displayed at MAKS 2009 and depicted on brochures, which are constructed using TR module sticks and are several inches deeper.
To drive down the cost of this AESA, the best strategy available to the Russians is the export of AESA upgrades to the global community of Flanker users over the coming decade, emulating the US approach with this technology. Tikhomirov NIIP brochures state that the existing AESA would be the basis of AESA upgrade designs for the Su-27/30/35 Flankers.
Recent reports from India suggest that 100 Su-30MKI Flanker H may be retrofitted with AESA upgrades to their N011M BARS radars post 2015.
It is now inevitable that AESAs will appear on Flankers, the only uncertainties at this stage will be in the number of aircraft retrofitted, the clientele, and exact timelines and performance specifications of these radars.
Instrumented AESA prototype (Tikhomirov NIIP).
AESA antenna mounting. This example is constructed using TR module sticks, using an arrangement similar to the BARS and Irbis E, including the slot radiators. This brochure image may be of a developmental antenna, as the example presented in the Vesti video uses the same style of circular dielectric radiator as the competing Zhuk AE/ASE series (Tikhomirov NIIP).
TR Module stick. Of particular interest is that the feed networks are symmetrically split, permitting this design to produce dual plane monopulse sum and difference outputs from a stack of such sticks (Tikhomirov NIIP).
The Russian drive to improve supersonic persistence in the Flanker via supercruise class engines is clearly in a large part driven by this reality. In the bluntest of terms, throwing a spear from the top of a hill is always easier than throwing one uphill. An R-27EA with a range cited at ~70 nautical miles becomes a ~100 nautical mile class missile if launched supersonic from a superior altitude.
Electronic warfare between opponents remains a key consideration in long range missile combat. While high power aperture radars provide good burnthrough performance, at extreme ranges well in excess of 50 nautical miles burnthrough is unlikely to be a practical proposition. This is because the power ratings of conventional defensive jamming systems will be sized to defeat surface based engagement radars with power aperture performance well in excess of any fighter radar. A technique for suppressing a jamming source that is available to users of AESAs and hybrid ESAs is to put sharp nulls into the antenna mainlobe dynamically.
The use of the ESA or AESA to jam an opponent's radar is a proposition only where the opponent lacks the frequency agility in the their radar to evade jamming, and lacks an X-band anti-radiation missile which would benefit from the stable emissions produced by a jamming mode.
What does become a proposition for both sides is jamming of the missile midcourse datalink uplink channel to deny midcourse flight position updates after a missile launch. Historically the jamming of missile uplinks has been considered difficult and demanding of high power levels. This is because missile datalink antennas point in the direction of the launching aircraft, which means that what little jamming power can couple into the antenna must be carried by surface travelling waves along the missile airframe. With a high power aperture ESA or AESA such uplink jamming becomes feasible. However, both sides also have the option of coating their missiles with X-band lossy materials, which will diminish the coupling effect.
The reality for better or worse is that possessing radar detection and tracking range performance well in excess of missile kinematic range performance is unlikely to provide any benefit beyond very early warning of an inbound threat, giving the pilot the option of reversing and getting away, provided the opponent's radar and radio frequency surveillance systems are not good enough to detect the longer ranging radar. Increased fighter power aperture performance may increase its target detection footprint, but it also increases the opponent's passive detection footprint for the radar - the inverse square law of passive detection produces stronger effect than the inverse fourth power law of radar detection.
Tikhomirov NIIP N011M BARS
NIIP N011M BARS Prototype.
The BARS is the most advanced radar developed by Russian industry during the 1990s. It is unusual in being designed with a hybrid array arrangement, the receive path using very similar technology to US and EU AESAs, with similar sensitivity and sidelobe performance, but using a Travelling Wave Tube and backplane waveguide feed for the transmit direction, a technology closest to the B-1B and early Rafale EA radars. As such the BARS is a transitional design sitting in between Passive ESAs (PESA) and contemporary AESAs. There is no doubt this design strategy reflected the unavailability to Russian designers of the Gallium Arsenide power transistors used in Western AESAs.
The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. The antenna is constructed using phase shifter and receiver 'stick' modules, a similar technology to early US AESAs.
Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.
The BARS remains in production for the Indian and Malaysian Irkut built Su-30MKI/MKM variants. The radar is available with a range of TWT power ratings, this being the source of considerable confusion to observers who have not tracked this program since its inception. The result is a wide range of performance figures depending on the resulting Power Aperture Product. That the antenna has good power handling capability is evident in its adaptation for the Irbis E design.
Given the similarity between the Irbis E and BARS, existing BARS operators will over time effect block upgrades to convert their BARS inventories into the Irbis E configuration.
Q1. WHY N-011M BARS RADAR USED IN Su-30MKI CONSIDERED TO BE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PESA SYSTEM??
ANS- It is developed by Tikhomirov, a Passive Electrical Scanned Array (PESA) radar, thats what generally said. But looking at its scanning pattern I’ll say it’s more of a hybrid system that integrates the advantages of Mechanically Scanned Array and PESA system. Unlike other PESA system it doesn’t use same receiver amplifier for each TRM module, rather it has separate system like AESA. But in case of signal transmitting it uses single Oscillator of fixed freq…So you can say it’s a transition from common PESA system to AESA system.
Q2. IS IT A X-BAND OR L-BAND SYSTEM ??
ANS-Yes it is a X-band radar of 8-12GHz freq. As i already told you, it’s a hybrid system, so It incorporates the L-band, 1-2GHz IFF (Identification of Friend-or-Foe) system to improve the performance, and also an
N011-0M mechanically steered antenna system.
Q3. ANYTHING ABOUT POWER O/P, FREQ. BAND, SCANCOVERAGE ??
ANS- It can scan upto +/-70 degree in azimuth and +/- 45 degree in vertical axis, also it can be mechanically steered to +/-55 degree off bore-sight, thus giving the pilot a full +/-100 degree off bore-sight forward hemispherical coverage with 3dB noise figure same as an AESAR. It has 3 Indian made Ts-200 processor of 28GHZ speed with digital processing system and can perform 70million operation per second. Both static and flash memory are of 16MB size. The average power o/p each channel receiver is 1.2kw and 1kw illuminator for radar homing missile…so sum of all 3 channel receiver and target designator has power o/p of 4-5 kw.
Q4. GREAT AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MULTI-MODE RADAR AND HEY YOU’VE NOT MENTIONED THE RANGE EITHER ??
ANS- Air-Air mode: 15 tracked and 4 engaged simultaneously, 400Km search range, 200km track range, 60km rear tracking. Also in Air-Air mode it can do a Raid assesment and NTCR.
Air-Ground/Maritime strike: 15 tracked, 2 engaged, for tanks it
has detection range of 60km and for Naval ships or destroyers 90-120km. Features include Synthetic Aperture Radar Imaging(SAR), Doppler beam sharpening, real beam mapping and Ground/Maritime Moving Target Indicator(GMTI/MMTI). So it is perfectly suited for swing-role missions where you have no confirmation over the threats either they are ground threats or enemy air defence fighter. You can switch to any mode any time according to your mission requirements. And thats what make it Multi-mode system.
Q.5 Tell me about the Cope-India war game, How did MKI perform against USAF’s F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15 Strike Eagles ?? And also Indradhanush exercise with RAF.
ANS- In Cope-India war game with USAF and Indradhanus Exercise with RAF… IAF has instructed their pilots not to use the N-011M above training mode! Also MKIs lack an AWACS in their formation. So what happened
actually is every time they got
something in their radar…they
didn’t know it was a friendly or
Threat…because IFF system isn’t
online.(training mode) and before they could know it was a threat or friendly…it was Fox 2…Game over!!! But in dog fight they outperform the USAF F-16s and F-15s. I may say they beat the crap out of F-16s and F-15s. But The RAF Typhoon gives MKI a good run for its money.
Q.6 Ok…enough with these number games, tell me in simple english what’s N011M BARS PANTHER RADAR SYSTEM ??
ANS- Ok…in simple english…no tech words…”YOU TAKE THE ICINGS FROM VARIOUS DELICIOUS PUDDINGS AND MAKE YOUR OWN CAKE WITH THOSE ICE TOPPING”…voila you get a N011M…
Super MKI
Russian industry crossed an important milestone with the 2007 unveiling of Phazotron's Zhuk AE AESA radar for the MiG-35. In August, 2009, Tikhomirov NIIP were cleared to publicly display the new AESA developed for the PAK-FA, and also a clear candidate for Flanker retrofits.
Until recently, the principal impediment to the introduction of AESAs has been the unavailability of good Gallium Arsenide technology power transistors for use in AESA Transmit Receive modules. While global commercial GaAs production is of the order of 100 times greater in volume compared to military production in the West, there has been only modest non-military demand for this class of transistor to date. That is changing now with the US breakthrough earlier this decade in Gallium Nitride transistors, now appearing in second generation US AESAs, as these have been identified as an enabling technology for WiMax broadband networking.
As result the coming decade will see such devices mass produced for commercial users, making their export to Russian defence industry impossible to control. We are already observing Japanese manufacturers producing GaN transistors rated at 50 Watts in the X-band. The commodification of high performance 32-bit and 64-bit microprocessor chips is the applicable case study, since these are now appearing in a wide range of Russian military equipment designs.
The principal challenges Western designers have faced in AESAs have fallen into both antenna design, and integration. AESAs typically use A-class amplifiers to provide bandwidth and frequency agility, and the high linearity and low distortion required for sophisticated waveforms. The result is considerable power dissipation in the antenna, which is typically dealt with by liquid cooling using Poly-Alpha-Olefin (PAO) coolant. Some designs, such as the F-22A and F-16/B60, dump heat into the aircraft's fuel as a thermal buffer, and then dissipate it. Some designs will directly dump the heat into a heat exchanger.
Integration of an AESA into the Flanker airframe will not present difficulties, as there is considerable internal volume, large internal fuel capacity with potentially large cooling capacity, and electrical power to spare with the newer engine designs.
The large 0.9-1.1 metre diameter aperture provided by the nose and radome design will be especially attractive to an AESA designer. This aperture size permits around twice as many AESA modules of similar size to most current Western designs, apart from the F-22A Raptor APG-77 and F-15C APG-63(V)3/4, to be packed into the antenna.
The implications of this are sobering, insofar as with modules rated at half the peak power of the current state-of-the-art, such a radar could provide about the same peak power rating as current top end US AESAs. The Power Aperture Product would thus be higher due to the aperture area being so much larger. With COTS derived modules of much higher peak power rating than current US military GaN HEMT technology, a future Flanker AESA could have a very much higher Power Aperture Product figure, with significant counter-stealth potential.
In 2009 there were two principal candidate AESAs for installation in new build Flankers, or retrofit into existing service Flankers. These radars are NIIR Phazotron's intended Zhuk-AS/ASE, scaled up from the MiG-35 Zhuk AE AESA, and a derivative of Tikhomirov NIIP's new PAK-FA AESA, displayed publicly at MAKS 2009.
Both radar designs are based on the quad channel TR module technology first disclosed during the public release of the Zhuk AE. These X-band modules are now being mass produced on an automated line by NPP Istok, who are also planning S-band module production. Mostly Russian produced GaAs components are employed. Cited capacity is sufficient for 50 AESA radars annually.
Other than a stated intent by NIIR Phazotron to scale up the Zhuk AE, there are no technical details of this design available at this time. In a sense it is an analogue of the Raytheon scaling of the APG-79 AESA for the APG-63(V)3/4 upgrade (refer below).
Estimated detection range chart for variants of a Flanker sized AESA equipped with a range of Transmit Receive Module power ratings per channel. The detection range performance of the 10 and 12 Watt module equipped AESA is similar to the Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis-E hybrid ESA in the Su-35S, and much superior to the N011M BARS. The performance of AESA if equipped with modules rated above 15 Watts is superior to the Irbis E. Receiver noise figure and effective aperture area are assumed to be similar. N011M performance is based on parametric data and is better than NIIP cited figures (Author, 2008).
Modelling performed by APA in 2008, making some reasonable assumptions, such as an element count of ~1600 for the antenna provides a good baseline for a Zhuk AS/ASE as well as the PAK-FA AESA. This is detailed under the Zhuk AS/ASE analysis of 2008.
Enhanced stills from a Russian television broadcast reporting the Tikhomirov NIIP PAK-FA AESA design. Static display images of the antenna have a dielectric impedance matching screen installed, which obscures the actual TR module apertures (Vesti - Moskva via Youtube).
NIIP AESA on display at MAKS 2009 (© 2009, Miroslav Gyűrösi).
The Tikhomirov NIIP AESA design for the PAK-FA is better understood. The antenna aperture is very similar in size, if not identical, to the aperture of the Irbis E. The design is intended for fixed low signature tilted installation, rather than gimballed installation, and auxiliary cheek arrays are planned for. The design is claimed to have been integrated with an existing BARS/Irbis radar for testing and design validation purposes.
Public statements made in Russia claim 1,500 TR module elements. Counting exposed radiating elements on video stills of the antenna indicates an estimated 1,524 TR channels, with a tolerance of several percent. This is within 5% of the 2008 APA model for a Flanker AESA.
NIIP have publicly cited detection range performance of 350 to 400 km (190 to 215 NMI), which assuming a Russian industry standard 2.5m2 target, is consistent with the 2008 APA model for a radar using ~10W rated TR modules, which in turn is the power rating for the modules used in the Zhuk AE prototypes. This puts the nett peak power at ~15 kiloWatts, slightly below the Irbis E, but even a very modest 25% increase in TR module output rating would overcome this.
There are distinct differences between the AESA displayed by NIIP for Vesti, which has less depth and uses circular radiators, and the examples displayed at MAKS 2009 and depicted on brochures, which are constructed using TR module sticks and are several inches deeper.
To drive down the cost of this AESA, the best strategy available to the Russians is the export of AESA upgrades to the global community of Flanker users over the coming decade, emulating the US approach with this technology. Tikhomirov NIIP brochures state that the existing AESA would be the basis of AESA upgrade designs for the Su-27/30/35 Flankers.
Recent reports from India suggest that 100 Su-30MKI Flanker H may be retrofitted with AESA upgrades to their N011M BARS radars post 2015.
It is now inevitable that AESAs will appear on Flankers, the only uncertainties at this stage will be in the number of aircraft retrofitted, the clientele, and exact timelines and performance specifications of these radars.
Instrumented AESA prototype (Tikhomirov NIIP).
AESA antenna mounting. This example is constructed using TR module sticks, using an arrangement similar to the BARS and Irbis E, including the slot radiators. This brochure image may be of a developmental antenna, as the example presented in the Vesti video uses the same style of circular dielectric radiator as the competing Zhuk AE/ASE series (Tikhomirov NIIP).
TR Module stick. Of particular interest is that the feed networks are symmetrically split, permitting this design to produce dual plane monopulse sum and difference outputs from a stack of such sticks (Tikhomirov NIIP).
Facts is a term often used by people who have nothing else to prove their claim. It is a fact that eating beef is consdiered offensive in India but Kerala has beef fests.
Stephen Cohen
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2014
- Messages
- 8,456
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Comparing the capability of SU 30 MKI with beef fests in Kerala is like
equating a technical matter with a Legal matter
The sale and consumption of beef is regulated by each state Government
as per their own laws
A few states do allow Beef consumption legally
Last edited:
Local_Legend
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2016
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Haven't heard any news about Super Sukhoi from a long time ... any of you , friends ???
Sri
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 0
Last I heard was - IAF was not impressed with the Aesa option given for the upgrade. Not sure far this is true. May be IAF is waiting for T-50 to get operational and ask for this radar.Nahee ... Aise bolkar hamare dil nahi tod sakte hai app
( But thanks for reminding the story . It refreshed lots of childhood memories !)
Similar threads
