2*MIG 35 >> RAFALE/EFT

[Major Shaitan Singh]

The MiG-35 Zhuk AE AESA designed by Phazotron is the first Russian AESA design and is expected to spawn upgrade packages for Flanker variants, as Phazotron have been trying for over ten years to break NIIP's defacto monopoly on Flanker radars. Its most likely competitor will be a derivative of NIIP's AESA design developed for the PAK-FA.

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).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK2d0LRWrbY&feature=player_embedded

 

[Devianz]

Su 30 MKi has a much higher chance than the Mig-35 due to a much more powerful radar (after upgrade). It has a higher chance to come out alive, but even then Typhoon > MKI.

MKI can down a Typhoon if it comes to dogfighting, but on a long range, I don't think so.

I'm not worried about the outcome of an MKI vs EFT show down. The Irbis-E has a claimed detection range of 90kms for .01 m^2 target (debatable). That should mean that the AESA variant Zhuk-ASE should be capable of similar detection performance, meaning it would detect a clean EFT at 180kms. EFT will not be getting the first shot off as both would detect each other at similar ranges. The rest is upto missiles and countermeasures. Currently EFT has upper hand in the missiles department but the MKI should be having better countermeasures because it uses Israeli systems?

 

[Ping]

PLease guys share the basic information related to aesa of all the fighters, especially Typhoon and Rafale. I mean the range of the radar and the number of enemies it can detect and simultaneously engage.

Thanx in advance.

here ya go: Which is the No:1 Fighter Aircraft in South Asia ?

We should transfer money from this MMRCA to Tejas and PAK-FA projects. This whole MMRCA saga stinks. The only way to save money is to go for Mig-35.
Spending close to 20% of the annual budget on weapons which we are not going to use to protect its citizens is stupid.

 

[jagjitnatt]

I'm not worried about the outcome of an MKI vs EFT show down. The Irbis-E has a claimed detection range of 90kms for .01 m^2 target (debatable). That should mean that the AESA variant Zhuk-ASE should be capable of similar detection performance, meaning it would detect a clean EFT at 180kms. EFT will not be getting the first shot off as both would detect each other at similar ranges. The rest is upto missiles and countermeasures. Currently EFT has upper hand in the missiles department but the MKI should be having better countermeasures because it uses Israeli systems?

Yes, the Zhuk-AE at 0.97 m diameter aperture will have ranges similar to that of Irbis-E. But the Zhuk-AE installed on the Mig-35 will be a 0.6 m aperture radar, which will have half the power of the 0.97 m one. So that is why a Mig-35 wouldn't be able to detect a clean EFT at 180 kms, but at only 90 kms at best.

About missiles, yes EFT has good missiles, and with induction of Meteor, the power of EFT will more than double.

But the countermeasures aren't Israeli on MKI. They are Russian. A jamming pod can be mounted on the MKI, but that pod isn't effective again EFT radar, but only against APG series of radar, which the PAF F-16s field.

 

[luckyyy]

Yes, the Zhuk-AE at 0.97 m diameter aperture will have ranges similar to that of Irbis-E. But the Zhuk-AE installed on the Mig-35 will be a 0.6 m aperture radar, which will have half the power of the 0.97 m one. So that is why a Mig-35 wouldn't be able to detect a clean EFT at 180 kms, but at only 90 kms at best.

Our Mig 29Ks uses the Zhuk ME radar and according the brochure, it has a detection range of 120Km for a 5m2 fighter, the EF T2 uses the Captor M radar and is said to have a detection range of 160Km for a similar size fighters (bigger fighters even up to 185Km). I guess that gives you a hint on the difference between their AESA radar versions, not to forget that the early Zhuk AE did not met IAF requirements and they had to upgrade it.
In A2A against a Mig 35, the EF has all advantages on it's side:

- bigger and more capable radar
- clearly lower RCS
- longer more capable BVR and WVR missiles
- SC capability
- higher TWR

Russia claims 200 km range for MiG-35's Phazotron Zhuk AE

September 17, 2009, (Sawf News) - As the MMRCA competition heats up, Phazotron NIIR corporation has offered a 52 km increase in the detection range of its Zhuk AE AESA fitted on its contender in the race - MiG-35.

The increased range will likely make the MiG-35's radar the most powerful amidst the MMRCA contenders - Boeing Super Hornet F/A-18E/F, Lockheed Martin Super Viper F-16IN, Saab AB's JS-39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH's Typhoon, and RSK MiG-35.

The MMRCA tender calls for a minimum detection range of at least 130 kilometers (about 80 miles).

"We have met this requirement of the Indian tender and built the Zhuk-AE active phased array radar with a proven range of 148 kilometers," said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director.

The Zhuk-AE can detect aerial targets at ranges up to 148 km (head on) in both look-up or look down modes. Look-up tail-on detection range is 50km (40km look down). The radar can track 30 aerial targets in the track-while-scan mode, and engage six targets simultaneously in the attack mode.

Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director, says the detection range of the radar could be increased from 148 km to 200 km.

A Phazotron official I spoke with at Aero India 2009 in February had pointed out that the Zhuk-AE's range could be extended dramatically by locating it further back in the nose of the MiG-35, taking advantage of the increased cross section to add TR modules and increase the radiated energy.

The publicly acknowledged range of the AN/APG 79 AESA that equips the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is 160 km. It is highly likely the AN/APG 79 AESA has a higher detection range than what is publicly acknowledged, but whether it goes up to 200 km is moot.

Compared to the MiG-35 the F/A-18E has a narrower nose cross section precluding the use of a bigger array. It is unlikely that the detection range of AN/APG 79 AESA could be extended because of antenna aperture and cooling constraints.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Russia claims 200 km range for MiG-35's Phazotron Zhuk AE

September 17, 2009, (Sawf News) - As the MMRCA competition heats up, Phazotron NIIR corporation has offered a 52 km increase in the detection range of its Zhuk AE AESA fitted on its contender in the race - MiG-35.

The increased range will likely make the MiG-35's radar the most powerful amidst the MMRCA contenders - Boeing Super Hornet F/A-18E/F, Lockheed Martin Super Viper F-16IN, Saab AB's JS-39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH's Typhoon, and RSK MiG-35.

The MMRCA tender calls for a minimum detection range of at least 130 kilometers (about 80 miles).

"We have met this requirement of the Indian tender and built the Zhuk-AE active phased array radar with a proven range of 148 kilometers," said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director.

The Zhuk-AE can detect aerial targets at ranges up to 148 km (head on) in both look-up or look down modes. Look-up tail-on detection range is 50km (40km look down). The radar can track 30 aerial targets in the track-while-scan mode, and engage six targets simultaneously in the attack mode.

Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company's general director, says the detection range of the radar could be increased from 148 km to 200 km.

A Phazotron official I spoke with at Aero India 2009 in February had pointed out that the Zhuk-AE's range could be extended dramatically by locating it further back in the nose of the MiG-35, taking advantage of the increased cross section to add TR modules and increase the radiated energy.

The publicly acknowledged range of the AN/APG 79 AESA that equips the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is 160 km. It is highly likely the AN/APG 79 AESA has a higher detection range than what is publicly acknowledged, but whether it goes up to 200 km is moot.

Compared to the MiG-35 the F/A-18E has a narrower nose cross section precluding the use of a bigger array. It is unlikely that the detection range of AN/APG 79 AESA could be extended because of antenna aperture and cooling constraints.

The range I mentioned was the range at which a Mig-35 will detect an EFT, and the range listed in your link is the range for a normal fighter whose rcs is taken as 5 sq m. And we all know the rcs of EFT is less than 1 sq m. So the range is obviously reduce in case of EFT.

So your link is useless.

 

[tvsram1992]

here ya go: Which is the No:1 Fighter Aircraft in South Asia ?

We should transfer money from this MMRCA to Tejas and PAK-FA projects. This whole MMRCA saga stinks. The only way to save money is to go for Mig-35.
Spending close to 20% of the annual budget on weapons which we are not going to use to protect its citizens is stupid.

mmrca is to clear immediate threat from china and pakistan . We need more than 40 squadrons with in 2020.
tejas mk3 and pakfa has future benefits around 2050
mca/stealth tejas replaces mmrca , pakfa replaces su30mki,tejas mk3 replaces other small soldier aircraft. So we are self sufficient b/w 2020-2050 . No one can dare to attack us.
all mmrca aircraft competitors protect our citizens undoubtedly and can attack our enemies simuntaneously till 2035 with out major upgrades.
the main advantage of rafale/eft is more payload,range which can be overcomed by 2 mig35's against one rafale/eft.

 

[drunken-monke]

Do you all people favoring know that Mig 35 failed to restart its Engine at Laddakh and engine failed to impress IAF.. Second thing as few members have already mentioned thats the radards aperture is small hence though a Zuk AESA radar from Phazetron would be installed in Mig 35, how well its capability is, god knows. Total cost or maintenance would be quite high. Also delivery of the aircraft's first batch would be quite late, around 2015. About eurofighter, the bird is good with meteor missile which would be integrated after few months or year would give it a precision Air to air attack capability, but the aircraft lacks AESA radar.. EFT has been constantly beaten by rafel in different exercises. So it might be rafel or F18 S/H. Still think F18's chances are lame but cant predict..if then offere us their growler then we might think twice..

 

[tvsram1992]

Efficiency of a2a missiles
Though a2a missiles fly at mach 4-5 speed , no such missile is reported to shot down a real aircraft. Justs tests are successful. Generally bvr a2a missiles are tested on ground ie like sams which do not exceed 5kms altitude. Only missile defense missiles are known to hit a moving target with high speed.
Practical example would include infrared r-73 fully operational a2a russian missile.
In vayu shakthi 2010 mki fired r-73 to a range not more than a km . That too a stationary target. If at all really it could ve hit a moving aircraft fast moving uav would ve been a target instead of stationary air target.
This is the case of russia , american and european missiles may be better than russian ones but they are not exceptions in case of efficiency.
Did any BVR missile shot a fighter aircraft any time?
More over permission is not given to pilots to shoot down a aircraft even in case of war unless they see the enemy craft.
World war is exception to this. This is not possible in case of india vs china/pakistan wars as shooting passenger planes would shake the world.
Can a a2a missile hit a target moving at mach speeds though it moves at mach 5. Maneuverability becomes issue here. Brahmos is the only missile known to maneuver till date. How can a missile maneuver continuosly as the target keeps on moving. Target is not a missile , so as we can predict its path and head towards target. Its an aircraft which can move in different directions. So it would be very difficult for missile to hit target. Dogfights are only proved ways to shoot down enemy's aircraft. History tells that. Till 2020 there is no real a2a missile which is bvr. The bvr we are saying is that moves with mach 5 at 150kms range and hits target if it i still on radar whose maneuverability is still questionable. If at all it could hit target it could ve been deployed as a2a anti missile system.The real bvr a2a missiles would take birth after 2020's which are air to air versions of advanced abm's.


please comment on this

 

[tvsram1992]

Missile jamming systems don't work against every aircraft, it only works against radars, which the jamming system was designed to work against. There is no jamming device right now that can jam Typhoon's radar, cause its operating frequencies are unknown to outside world.

This is the reason MKI didn't use its radar in RedFlag 2008. Even BARS radar's frequencies are classified and unknown, and it can not be jammed.

Sir,
I would like to know more about this. Missile jamming system. Why eft frequencies are unknown. Can the frequency be changed. Why mki didnt use radar. It seems to be interesting.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Sir,
I would like to know more about this. Missile jamming system. Why eft frequencies are unknown. Can the frequency be changed. Why mki didnt use radar. It seems to be interesting.

Every radar works at a pre determined frequency, except for AESA radars, which keep shifting their frequencies. If we know what frequency a radar works at, we can flood that frequency range, which confuses the enemy aircraft radar.

The radar detects something when it shoots a radio beam, and when the radio beam comes back to the radar. But in case of flooding, it keeps receiving illogical data in that frequency range. It becomes very tough to distinguish the original signal from the flooded signal.

That is the basis of jamming. There is a lot more that goes into it, but I'll talk about it sometime later.

If MKI would have switched on its radar in RedFlag 2008, the surveillance systems used by US in the exercise would have picked up the frequencies of the MKI radar. This would then enable them to understand the working of our radar, and allow them to create a jamming device for it.

EFT has never switched on its radar in a zone where surveillance systems are present. For the same reason.

The frequencies of the radar can not be changed. Only the AESA frequencies can be changed. An AESA actually keeps shifting frequencies every moment, which makes it almost impossible to jam a radar. The only way to jam an AESA is to flood the whole range of frequencies, which is a very tough thing to do, requires a lot of power.

 

[tvsram1992]

Every radar works at a pre determined frequency, except for AESA radars, which keep shifting their frequencies. If we know what frequency a radar works at, we can flood that frequency range, which confuses the enemy aircraft radar.

The radar detects something when it shoots a radio beam, and when the radio beam comes back to the radar. But in case of flooding, it keeps receiving illogical data in that frequency range. It becomes very tough to distinguish the original signal from the flooded signal.

That is the basis of jamming. There is a lot more that goes into it, but I'll talk about it sometime later.

If MKI would have switched on its radar in RedFlag 2008, the surveillance systems used by US in the exercise would have picked up the frequencies of the MKI radar. This would then enable them to understand the working of our radar, and allow them to create a jamming device for it.

EFT has never switched on its radar in a zone where surveillance systems are present. For the same reason.

The frequencies of the radar can not be changed. Only the AESA frequencies can be changed. An AESA actually keeps shifting frequencies every moment, which makes it almost impossible to jam a radar. The only way to jam an AESA is to flood the whole range of frequencies, which is a very tough thing to do, requires a lot of power.

Then india might have been knowing the frequencies of all mmrca contenders ie
rafale
eurofighter typhoon
f-16
gripen
f/a-18
mig 35
as india evaluated all these aircraft at ladakh,jaisalmer and bangalore.
Do any one think evaluation was done with out swichtching of above 6 aircrafts radar?
Then definetly india would have made jamming devices against f-16's even it would have noted other frequencies so that if any enemy would buy any of 6 fighters in future india would sure make a jamming device.

 

[MST]

Then india might have been knowing the frequencies of all mmrca contenders ie
rafale
eurofighter typhoon
f-16
gripen
f/a-18
mig 35
as india evaluated all these aircraft at ladakh,jaisalmer and bangalore.
Do any one think evaluation was done with out swichtching of above 6 aircrafts radar?
Then definetly india would have made jamming devices against f-16's even it would have noted other frequencies so that if any enemy would buy any of 6 fighters in future india would sure make a jamming device.

No India cannot know the frequencies of the radars of any of these aircrafts. That is the reason I think all the weapons testing took place in their respective countries. In India only their flight testing wasdone in extreme conditions. And during that I am sure they must have kept their radars switched off.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Then india might have been knowing the frequencies of all mmrca contenders ie
rafale
eurofighter typhoon
f-16
gripen
f/a-18
mig 35
as india evaluated all these aircraft at ladakh,jaisalmer and bangalore.
Do any one think evaluation was done with out swichtching of above 6 aircrafts radar?
Then definetly india would have made jamming devices against f-16's even it would have noted other frequencies so that if any enemy would buy any of 6 fighters in future india would sure make a jamming device.

India doesn't know the frequencies of these aircraft, because the aircraft is flown with pilots from their companies. The restrictions on the flight controls are decided by the manufacturer.

For weapon testing, the airspace is decided by the manufacturer, only the indian pilots are involved in it, not even scientists.

India does know the frequency range for APG-68 series radar, we got the frequencies from Israel, and we use a jamming pod from them. That pod is the best against the APG-68 radar, and even effective against some other radars of APG series.

 

[rockstarIN]

^^Do you really think IsAF shared that much secretive data with Indians? as their Sufa is running on APG series and Americans didn't allow them to change it to ELTA/2032.

Anyway, informative data from you..

Thx