What's new

Is it possible to convert su-30 into stealth or semi stealth?

Thanks mate. Yes reduced RCS along with AESA radar and great combat range even without external fuel tanks will make MKI an absolute punisher.

AESA radar is not fixed yet, IAF tries to get AESA as the new standard, but the only AESA the Russians have so far is the Zhuk and not even that is operational yet. The fact that even Russian Air Force and Navy opt for Zhuk ME in their latest Mig 29 procurements tells a lot. Not to mention that the BARS manufacturer is proposing a PESA upgrade more comparable to Su 35s IRBIS-E now, to make a more credible AESA upgrade later, based on the FGFA AESA. But as said, nothing is desided yet and needs to be worked out.
 
AESA radar is not fixed yet, IAF tries to get AESA as the new standard, but the only AESA the Russians have so far is the Zhuk and not even that is operational yet. The fact that even Russian Air Force and Navy opt for Zhuk ME in their latest Mig 29 procurements tells a lot. Not to mention that the BARS manufacturer is proposing a PESA upgrade more comparable to Su 35s IRBIS-E now, to make a more credible AESA upgrade later, based on the FGFA AESA. But as said, nothing is desided yet and needs to be worked out.
Well I guess even Irbis E like radar will do for super sukhoi. anyway is it possible to upgrade it to AESA later?
 
Well I guess even Irbis E like radar will do for super sukhoi. anyway is it possible to upgrade it to AESA later?

I don't think they will upgrade it with the IRBIS E, but upgrade the BARS itself to a similar level. And further upgrading the PESA to AESA is possible, but as when you can have a version of the FGFA AESA for MKIs, why bother to upgrade BARS once again to AESA?
 
I don't think they will upgrade it with the IRBIS E, but upgrade the BARS itself to a similar level. And further upgrading the PESA to AESA is possible, but as when you can have a version of the FGFA AESA for MKIs, why bother to upgrade BARS once again to AESA?
Okay. May be that's why IAF want to wait a bit more for radars as FGFAs itself is few years away from induction and thus its radar. Let's see.
 
YES! but why Su-30?
Well OP meant MKI there. MKIs are gonna be upgraded with super sukhoi standard and RCS reduction with avionics upgradations are important parts of that.

I don't think they will upgrade it with the IRBIS E, but upgrade the BARS itself to a similar level. And further upgrading the PESA to AESA is possible, but as when you can have a version of the FGFA AESA for MKIs, why bother to upgrade BARS once again to AESA?
Sancho, I asked Saurav Jha about super sukhois radar, and his answer was 'most likely FGFA's radar', something even you are saying.
 
Sancho, I asked Saurav Jha about super sukhois radar, and his answer was 'most likely FGFA's radar', something even you are saying.

It would be a logical option, but the question is, when it will be integrated and what happens in between.
 
Despite the advent of 'stealth' aircrafts jamming or ECM remain a valuable tool.

03370d5c59ff5e972c49a03265fd8241.jpg


If anything, while 'stealth' can penetrate highly dense EM environment alone, an ECM assault on the defense will further confuse the defenders as to what he may face since both 'stealth' and 'non-stealth' aircrafts are equally lethal in terms of weapons.

Stand-off jamming is generally for blanket noise generation. The jammer aircraft usually does not specifically target any ground seeking radar but is concerned if there is an active EM environment, what kind is it, and its extent. The jammer aircraft usually remain just immediately outside of the weapons threat range.

Stand-in, aka 'escort' or 'penetration', jamming is much more dangerous and complex. The jammer aircraft accompanies the strike group and actually interpose itself between the seeking radar and the strike group to provide an EM shield. The jammer aircraft usually seek out as specific as possible the most threatening signals and sources and will target them. Stand-in jammers are usually 'quiet' until the very last moment in order to best exploit the electronic element of surprise against the seeking radars.

Both types can be performed by a single design. It is more a matter of mission type than of hardware. In other words, an EF-18 can be a stand-off jammer in one mission and a penetration jammer the next. However, the US is exploring making the B-52 into an ECM platform and with its size and subsonic speed, more likely this B-52 ECM variant will be confined to stand-off jamming missions. Not only can the B-52 can carry more ECM hardware but those hardware can be more powerful as well, enabling the B-52 to blanket the general area much more effectively.

When a defense is suddenly assaulted by an ECM attacker, the first thing the radar operator must do is to lower the gain in order to reduce the odds of having his hardware damaged. This is not about Hollywood where consoles explodes and sparks flying out of boxes. The damages are much more subtle. The analogy is having a sudden burst of light while looking through low-light enhancement devices, aka night vision goggles (NVG). The human eyes will require time to readjust. The radar is no different. But even though the electronics will recover quicker than the organic eyes, the few seconds is enough for the 'stealth' aircrafts to pass through an area they would rather either avoid or take extreme caution. The radar operator can also physically turn his antenna so that its main face is away from the highest intensity of the ECM assault to protect his hardware, but then again, the few seconds is all the 'stealth' aircrafts need at several hundreds km/h.
How does missiles like ADM-160 MALD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia come to this equation ? is there any alternatives ?
How about upgrading one or two squd of MKI to electronic warfare platform like Growler and pass current role to LCA mk2 extra orders?
@sancho
 
How about upgrading one or two squd of MKI to electronic warfare platform like Growler and pass current role to LCA mk2 extra orders?

It needs to be seen what the MKI upgrade will bring, we know that the Russians offer us the same high power jammers that they use at the Su 34 and we surely could fit Israeli jamming pods to them as well. LCA however won't have much importance here.
 
How does missiles like ADM-160 MALD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia come to this equation ? is there any alternatives ?
How about upgrading one or two squd of MKI to electronic warfare platform like Growler and pass current role to LCA mk2 extra orders?
@sancho

You saw the video you posted. Its a decoy in disguise, even has its own ability to jam. Makes it even more indistinguishable with real jammer aircraft like the F18 Growler on radar.
 
It needs to be seen what the MKI upgrade will bring, we know that the Russians offer us the same high power jammers that they use at the Su 34 and we surely could fit Israeli jamming pods to them as well. LCA however won't have much importance here.
How would you rate current MKI jammer?
 
How would you rate current MKI jammer?

That are self protection jammers, not high power jammers for EA missions, like the ALQ-99 of the Growlers and Prowlers. With the upgrade the MKI should carry self protection jammers (most likely upgraded once) in the new wingtip pods that we can see at many Flanker versions today.
 
That are self protection jammers, not high power jammers for EA missions, like the ALQ-99 of the Growlers and Prowlers. With the upgrade the MKI should carry self protection jammers (most likely upgraded once) in the new wingtip pods that we can see at many Flanker versions today.
Thanks but what I meant was its performance compared to similar self protection jammers on other fighters.
 
How does missiles like ADM-160 MALD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia come to this equation ? is there any alternatives ?
A decoy is seduction/distraction, not jamming. It is to lead the defense's attention to somewhere and/or something else.

In jamming, we introduce anomalous data into the defense's data stream. Noise at any level of intensity and/or frequency. Essentially, we assault the defense's sensors.

With seduction/distraction, we attempt to convince the defense that there is nothing wrong with the data stream from the sensors. A decoy vehicle is a legitimate target. It may produce a radar signature other than what its construction should give, but as far as any sensor in the vicinity is concerned, that radar signature is and came from a legitimate vehicle.

There are tactical reasons why we want to use seduction/distraction tactics instead of sensor assaults. The main reason is simply we do not want the defense to know the extent of our jamming capability. That extent could be overwhelming or inadequate, meaning if our ability to assault the defense's sensors is weak, we want to hide that weakness and resort to misleading the sensors instead, but if our ability to assault the defense's sensors can overwhelm, then we may want to hold that ability in reserve for the 'right' moment. It is a tactical balancing act base upon individual area defense assessment.
 

Back
Top Bottom