Su-57 was necessary when the Russians had Su-35s ?

[Ultima Thule]

Over the past few weeks, I've read so many Western-denigrate writings, claiming that Su-57 is a failed project, personally I think, all just propaganda.

Remember that in the 1980s, the Su-27 was born after the F-15 a few years, during which time the Soviet Union used the MiG-29 as a main fighter. mostly with the NATO aircraft, on paper it is less than the F-15 in terms of long range attack capability, F-15 had better long-range radar, back in the 1970s, the United States had the F-14 with long-range missiles are better than the MiG-25 & MiG-23. At the time of the Vietnam War (1960s), the MiG-17/21 was much less powerful than the F-4, but the F-4 did not show a high rate of combat against the MiG-17 control by Vietnamese pilots. In this era, the F-35 and Su-35 repeat the history of the F-4 and MiG-21

The F-4 Phantom was a huge beast of a plane with two powerful J79 turbojet engines that could propel it up to two times the speed of sound, and a then-powerful radar housed in its nose. The Phantom was armed with new medium-range AIM-7D and E Sparrow medium-range missiles, as well as short-range AIM-9 Sidewinders AIM-4D Falcon heat-seekers.

The Air Force expected the Phantom would detect aerial adversaries from dozens of miles away, swoop down towards them at supersonic speeds and take out its foes with Sparrow missiles from up to twenty-eight miles away. Short-range dogfights were simply not intended or trained for, as the Phantom was not a particularly maneuverable bird.

Needless to say, this was not how things played out when U.S. fighters encountered North Vietnamese MiG-17 and MiG-21 jets over Vietnam. Though the much lighter MiG-21 had only a weak radar, its pilots were guided to intercept American raids by ground controllers, per Soviet doctrine. Also, American rules of engagement forbade opening fire until enemy aircraft had been positively identified—usually within visual range.

When the U.S. fighters finally did get a chance to open fire, the faulty Falcon and Sparrow missiles achieved kill probabilities below 10 percent. The shorter-range Sidewinders were somewhat more effective with 15 percent kill rates, but getting into an advantageous position to launch the heat-seekers often involved getting into knife-fighting range with the nimble MiGs. The kill-loss ratio of the more expensive U.S. jet fighters in general fell as low as 2:1 in certain phases of the Vietnam War.

Over time, the U.S. Air Force and Navy adjusted by fielding improved Sparrows and Sidewinder missiles, and retiring the older AIM-4 Falcon. Later, cannon-armed F-4E Phantoms were deployed, giving pilots a backup weapon in close range fights. Meanwhile, the Navy responded by forming the Top Gun school to teach naval aviators short-range dogfighting skills—lessons which resulted in the Navy Phantom pilots scoring a superior kill-ratio.

While today’s F-35 is intended to operate using long-range missiles and powerful radar, it trades the Phantom’s speed (the Lightning is considerably slower, with a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 to 1.8) for a reduced radar cross section that will make it very difficult to detect and engage with long range sensors and weapons. Thus, while the Air Force concedes the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a close encounter with say an Su-35 , in theory it should detect that Su-35 from further away, launch missiles at it from dozens of miles away, and then hi-tail it.

Air-to-air missiles have improved enormously since their first wide-scale employment during the Vietnam War. It doesn’t follow then that today’s AIM-120D, Meteor or R-77 BVR missiles will perform as poorly as the AIM-7E did in the past.

However, while testing of modern BVR missiles suggests a decent hit rate (around 50 percent is a common estimate) this was also true of preceding aerial missiles. More importantly, despite the increasingly long range of new BVR missiles, the vast majority of air-to-air shootdowns since 1970 have continued to be performed within visual range using both short- and medium-range missiles, as you can see in this detailed history . Many of the BVR hits that were scored in combat were against poorly equipped and trained adversaries that lacked radar-warning receivers to alert them of incoming attacks—unlikely to be true of a clash between modern near-peer opponents.

Overall, the Vietnam analogy highlights potential vulnerabilities of the F-35, but also cannot definitively account for the different technologies in play when evaluating the Lightning’s adaptability to the air superiority role. Key performance parameters concerning the effective range of long-range IRST, radars and missiles used by and against an stealth jet are probably necessary for a fairer evaluation, but are likely to be kept under wraps by anybody in a position to know.

The Su-35 is at least equal—if not superior—to the very best Western fourth-generation fighters. The big question, is how well can it perform against a fifth-generation stealth plane such as the F-22 or F-35?

The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don’t require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35’s speed (which contributes to a missile’s velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E’s agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles.

The more serious issue, though, is that we don’t know how effective stealth technology will be against a high-tech opponent. An F-35 stealth fighter that gets in a short-range duel with a Flanker-E will be in big trouble—but how good a chance does the faster, more-maneuverable Russian fighter have of detecting that F-35 and getting close to it in the first place?

As the U.S. Air Force would have it, stealth fighters will be able to unleash a hail of missiles up to one hundred miles away without the enemy having any way to return fire until they close to a (short) distance, where visual and IR scanning come into play. Proponents of the Russian fighter argue that it will be able to rely upon ground-based low-bandwidth radars, and on-board IRST sensors and PESA radar, to detect stealth planes.

Both parties obviously have huge economic and political incentives to advance their claims. While it is worthwhile examining the technical merits of these schools of thought in detail, the question will likely only be resolved by testing under combat conditions. Furthermore, other factors such as supporting assets, mission profile, pilot training and numbers play a large a role in determining the outcomes of aerial engagements.

Stealth fighters, like F-22's or F-35's, may be invisible to radar of 1970's technology but not to modern day radar. Stealth is a myth
Anything that moves through the air creates turbulence. And modern day radar can detect the air turbulence caused by either a small bird or a jumbo jet.

Russian airplanes are always in balance with the United States and the West, one generation apart, with no significant meanings in the sky.

Ex: Two Israeli F-15 and one F-4 was damaged in combat with the MiG-21 at lebanon war

http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47

In a well-known case from late afternoon of June 9, 1982, a Syrian MiG-21 pilot struck an F-15D with a single R-60/AA-8 Aphid missile. Despite severe damage, the pilot of the big U.S.-made fighter managed to fly it back to Israel for an emergency landing, and his aircraft was subsequently repaired.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=94363
https://warisboring.com/has-anyone-ever-shot-down-an-f-15-in-air-combat/

Today Russia does not armed race with the United States, they will not repeat the mistake of the Soviet Union, they will follow their own path, they will not be armed with expensive weapons to follow the path of the Soviet Union. Su-57 still has production lines, Russians have not said will cancel it, they will produce it in large numbers someday, when the United States has Gen 6 or Gen 7. And continue to Gen 6 their. Let's see how the US continues to produce F-16F, F-15X

In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia struggled with economic hardship, thanks to arms sales and gas contracts. The Su-27 project has progressed to a new height: the Su- 30 and Su-35. While in the United States, they operated the F-117s and F-22s, however, the F-117s were completely useless to fight in the air, US projects in other words like money laundering. Considering the F-22 is expected to replace the F-15, however, that did not happen

@blackuday

Damn that thing is wide.

@undertakerwwefan

In terms of looks, I think Su-57 trumps Su-27 / 35. It's clearly a 2000s design, not a 1970s design. That said, there is no need for Su-57. Heck, even if Russia has no military, no country would invade the world's biggest country. No one can expect to subjugate 140 million ethnic Russians who are the proudest people on the planet. Heck, it was an ethnic Russian who was the first man in space after all. That said, I do think a small number of Su-57, say 20 to 50, is good to show off to the rest of the world what ethnic Russians can do and that alone boosts export potentials of legacy Russia planes like Su-27 family and MiG-29 family.



MiG-29 is not a large fighter. It's the same size class as F-16 and F-18. MiG-31 and Su-27 are in the size class as F-15.



If stealth is so good they wouldn't have canceled RAH-66. Sure, RAM can absorb some radio, not not all. Maybe 15%, like how much solar panel can absorb. And don't forget, Su-35 and J-10 have RAM too. America isn't the only country that has RAM technology. Heck, it was USSR that first used solar panel in the space race. Solar panel has radiation absorbing material just like RAM.

@undertakerwwefan

This Borisov guy has been in office for only 2 months and he's already dissed Su-57 and T-14. Chap needs some manners. If this were in the US he'd be assassinated by the MIC.

@undertakerwwefan

Su-35 had addon AESA radar !

In addition, Russian Aerospace Forces, including the Su-35 fighter, are already equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, "which has demonstrated excellent performance given its significantly smaller size. Therefore, the ability to create a modern radar system for AWACS aircraft is not in doubt; the question is in the timing."

https://sputniknews.com/military/201606271042020932-russian-us-awacs-capabilities-analysis/

they have not much experience to build fighter jets AESA radar west building AESA (fighter jets) before russian @blackuday

Su-35 has PESA, not AESA.

how could you tell the truth @undertakerwwefan

Russian fighter jets intercept U.S. F-22 Raptor flying over Syria
Sep 24, 2018

in Aviation, News



Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


A Su-35S air-superiority fighter jet of Russia’s Aerospace Force has intercepted and visually identified the U.S. F-22 Raptor Raptor combat aircraft flying over Syria.

A photographs posted by unofficial Russia’s military pilot Instagram account on 24 September has confirmed an intercept of the U.S. F-22 Raptor Raptor combat aircraft by the Russian Su-35S fighter jet.

Photographs, made by the infrared search and track fire control system of the Russian Su-35S, shows in infrared spectrum an F-22 Raptor fighter jet flying over Syria.




The Su-35S infrared search and track system called the OLS-35 and includes an infrared sensor, laser rangefinder, target designator and television camera. This system to determine the general position of aircraft within a fifty-kilometer radius—potentially quite useful for detecting stealth aircraft, such as F-22, at shorter ranges.

The systems scans the airspace ahead of the jet for heat signatures caused by aircraft engines and/or plane’s surface friction caused by the aircraft flying through the air.

According to the Deagel.com, OLS-35 comprises a heat-seeker, a laser rangefinder/designator with new algorithms and advanced software to outperform its predecessor installed on the Su-27/Su-30 aircraft family. The Su-35 IRST is superior to the OEPS-27 in terms of range, precision and reliability.

But, the Su-35’s infrared search and track system (IRST) does not represent a panacea solution against stealth aircraft.

The OLS-35, like and other IRST, does not provide target quality track data for weapons employment. For example, if a Russian Su-35 fighter jet detected an approaching forward aspect F-22, the Russian pilot could not directly utilize the IRST data to direct semi-active, active, or passive homing missiles; laser illumination capabilities are generally a means to guide air-to-ground munitions rather than air-to-air missiles.

https://defence-blog.com/news/russian-fighter-jets-intercept-u-s-f-22-raptor-flying-over-syria.html

within the visual range of Su-35, if there was fight between F-22 and Su-35, Su-35 game over lot earlier By F-22
@blackuday

 

[Yaseen1]

i think if f22 was able to track su35 beyond visual range it would not have allowed su35 to see it from above in syria airspace and may have downed it which not happened as u.s air force have not disclosed details of this intercept yet

@blackuday


@undertakerwwefan

@undertakerwwefan

@undertakerwwefan

they have not much experience to build fighter jets AESA radar west building AESA (fighter jets) before russian @blackuday

how could you tell the truth @undertakerwwefan

within the visual range of Su-35, if there was fight between F-22 and Su-35, Su-35 game over lot earlier By F-22
@blackuday

 

[Ultima Thule]

i think if f22 was able to track su35 beyond visual range it would not have allowed su35 to see it from above in syria airspace and may have downed it which not happened as u.s air force have not disclosed details of this intercept yet

Stealth or LOW OBSERVABLE means stealth jets can be detected lot later than the enemy than conventional jets, when Stealth jets can be detected by other conventional jets game over for conventional jets, main theme of stealth jets are to attack in BVR scenario and hide your jet as much as you can from the enemy sensors @Muhammad bin Hamid

 

[blackuday]

Look at the photo, on the left we see that the F-22 is detected by the Su-35's Irbis-E radar, on the right is the IRST OLS-35 that is blocking the F-22 target.

Surprisingly, the F-22 was not fully alerted and aware when the Su-35 was locked

In contrast, the F-22 has never been found to detect Su-35s at far range, although they have met many times.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Look at the photo, on the left we see that the F-22 is detected by the Su-35's Irbis-E radar, on the right is the IRST OLS-35 that is blocking the F-22 target.

Surprisingly, the F-22 was not fully alerted and aware when the Su-35 was locked

In contrast, the F-22 has never been found to detect Su-35s at far range, although they have met many times.

keep blabbering without base F-22 AESA can detect SU-35 class target from 150 to 200 km away @blackuday

 

[gambit]

Look at the photo, on the left we see that the F-22 is detected by the Su-35's Irbis-E radar, on the right is the IRST OLS-35 that is blocking the F-22 target.

Surprisingly, the F-22 was not fully alerted and aware when the Su-35 was locked

In contrast, the F-22 has never been found to detect Su-35s at far range, although they have met many times.

Your argument is stupid.

If you can detect 'stealth', you keep quiet about it. If you can hack into the Pentagon, would your post it on your FB page? No, you would keep quiet about it and continue to serve your country where needed.

 

[HeinzG]

Your argument is stupid.

If you can detect 'stealth', you keep quiet about it. If you can hack into the Pentagon, would your post it on your FB page? No, you would keep quiet about it and continue to serve your country where needed.

Yes. It is little suspicious. Though the SU 35 could make an encounter in a smaller closed environment without being detected. Couldn't it?

 

[Signalian]

Both aircrafts are different types and different generations.

SU-57 enabled Russia to step into the stealth arena. A type of jet comparable to F-35 or F-22.

SU-35 is comparable to F-15 C, F-15 E, F-18 E/F series, all non-stealthy types but otherwise very capable aircrafts.

 

[randomradio]

Your argument is stupid.

If you can detect 'stealth', you keep quiet about it. If you can hack into the Pentagon, would your post it on your FB page? No, you would keep quiet about it and continue to serve your country where needed.

You change your colours whenever it suits you, eh?

When you argued the same point with me, it was I who said the Russians will stay silent if they figure out they can detect the F-22/F-35 and allow you to continue to throw money at it, while it was you who said they should advertise it and stop other countries from buying the F-35.

Or maybe you figured my argument was more sound.

 

[gambit]

You change your colours whenever it suits you, eh?

When you argued the same point with me, it was I who said the Russians will stay silent if they figure out they can detect the F-22/F-35 and allow you to continue to throw money at it, while it was you who said they should advertise it and stop other countries from buying the F-35.

Or maybe you figured my argument was more sound.

This is why I do not take you seriously...

Let us take the phrase 'low radar observability' for a moment...

What is the operative word in that phrase? It is RADAR.

To date, the best way to defeat any airborne attacker is still radar and it will remain that way for a very long time. My point is that if you know how to defeat a 'low radar observable' attacker by RADAR, you keep quiet about it.

Assuming this event is true, the F-22 was picked up by an infrared sensor. We ALREADY know what IR can 'see', but we also know IR's tactical limitations, namely, IR cannot provide certain target information the way radar can. So by all means, tell the world that your IR sensor can detect the F-22 and see how many will take that seriously.

 

[randomradio]

This is why I do not take you seriously...

Same here.

Let us take the phrase 'low radar observability' for a moment...

What is the operative word in that phrase? It is RADAR.

To date, the best way to defeat any airborne attacker is still radar and it will remain that way for a very long time. My point is that if you know how to defeat a 'low radar observable' attacker by RADAR, you keep quiet about it.

I remember our conversation very well. You spoke about how, if the Russians detect the F-22 using radar, the RWR would light up and inform the Americans that their stealth has been compromised, and then this can be distributed to the entire world and prevent the Americans from selling F-35s.

I pointed out that if stealth has indeed been compromised, then the Russians will keep quiet about it and let you spend money on a compromised system instead of forcing you to go back to the drawing board.

Just pointing out that you quickly changed your colours when it suits you.

Assuming this event is true, the F-22 was picked up by an infrared sensor. We ALREADY know what IR can 'see', but we also know IR's tactical limitations, namely, IR cannot provide certain target information the way radar can. So by all means, tell the world that your IR sensor can detect the F-22 and see how many will take that seriously.

This is why I do not take you seriously either. It's obvious you do not know how IR sensors on aircraft in the air to air mode works.

An IR sensor is not a standalone system. Its field of view is too small in order to meaningfully have first point of contact with any bird from long range, no different from looking through the viewfinder of a camera. Or even better, like looking through a drinking straw. So it requires an early warning aircraft or the aircraft's own radar, or even an RWR, to detect the threat first, and then you point the IR system in that direction. The only other way an IR system can detect the F-22 from long range is luck, which, as you know, is completely unreliable. An IRST is literally like the pilot looking for targets using binoculars.

But once the F-22 has been detected using radar, the IR system will latch onto it like a dog taking a bitch. You can't escape it. Also, modern IR systems can provide extremely detailed targeting information at very long ranges, it's so good now that even an active seeker falls short compared to it. If you are worried about range information, it's provided by a laser, which is more accurate than radar up to 50 miles. IRSTs are always coupled with laser rangefinders which can provide extremely accurate range and speed data. Another method is multilateration using multiple IR sensors within the group, which is easily performed by one aircraft and 2 ground based sensors. Overall, there is no problem with cueing missiles based on IRST information alone.

So, in this case, it's obvious something told the Su-35 to look in the F-22's direction before the IRST kicked in. And the Su-35's IRST is a dual colour based system, it's old tech, not like the more modern MCT and QWIP systems that you will find on the Typhoon, which have significantly higher resolutions. So it's a pretty big deal if it managed to pick up the F-22 from a sufficiently long range considering the weakness of the IRST in general.

Unless it's in a dog fight, it's a very, very big deal if an aircraft is tracking a stealth target using IRST at long range.

 

[gambit]

Same here.

The difference is that I have the background -- my 10 yrs in the USAF -- to back up my argument. You have nothing but poorly searched and compiled posts.

I remember our conversation very well. You spoke about how, if the Russians detect the F-22 using radar, the RWR would light up and inform the Americans that their stealth has been compromised, and then this can be distributed to the entire world and prevent the Americans from selling F-35s.

This is where my background matters.

The RWR system do not 'inform' anyone. When the RWR system detects a transmission, it display certain significant information regarding the search signals. If the seeking radar is fixated on a target, the behaviors of the search signals will change in amplitude and direction, and that information will be displayed by the target's RWR scope. It is up to the pilot to determine -- based upon the behaviors of the search signals -- if he has been detected or not. This is whether the aircraft is a C-130, F-16, or F-22.

Your lack of experience is revealed in your casual language and that misleads people.

I pointed out that if stealth has indeed been compromised, then the Russians will keep quiet about it and let you spend money on a compromised system instead of forcing you to go back to the drawing board.

Just pointing out that you quickly changed your colours when it suits you.

You can detect the F-22 in the field or in the math.

In the field, it is capricious due to environmental and tactical influences. If somehow you are able to use currently distributed technologies and techniques to detect 'stealth', then you let the world knows. On the other hand, if you can detect 'stealth' in the math, as in data processing of all returned signals, then you keep quiet about it.

I will explain...

In the field is how Zoltan Dani managed to shoot down an F-117. Dani observed the bombing attack patterns over days. The Serbs had sympathizers at NATO bases who notified them of launch events at Aviano. Dani modified the current air defense radar. He made no changes to the base technology. He simply modified its basic operating conditions, changing from one freq to another that he suspected would improve detection odds. It worked to some degrees. But let us be generous and say it works perfectly. So if you were in his shoes, would you keep quiet about it?

In the math is where 'stealth' is defeated at the fundamental level -- the returned radar signals. Currently, there are radars that can detect insects and rain drops, so why not use them to defeat the F-22? Because the currently widely used technology have limitations that the methods that works on the raindrop do not work on the F-22, and those limitations are at the fundamental level. If you can negate those limitations, indeed you should keep quiet about what you can do.

This is why I do not take you seriously either. It's obvious you do not know how IR sensors on aircraft in the air to air mode works.

I probably looked thru more IR devices than you have.

An IR sensor is not a standalone system.

Actually, all sensors must be designed and deployed as standalone systems. You can integrate their outputs into a centralized processor unit that will display the information in a coherent and usable fashion. Currently, it is called 'sensor fusion'.

There is a difference between integration, which is COOPERATIVE among different sensors, versus the master/slave relationship. In the master/slave relationship, one sensor can be the master under one situation and the slave in another, but if any sensor is inoperative for any reason, then the entire method collapse. The cooperative architecture allows flexibility and adaptability, especially under scenarios where the pilot may deem the tactical needs to use one sensor over the others. The 'sensor fusion' concept requires each sensor to be able to operate independently or to integrate when needed.

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/elite-engineering-the-brain-of-the-f-35

F-35 fusion has the ability to take partial data from each sensor and combine it to make an accurate assessment.

The keywords are 'partial data'.

The 'sensor fusion' concept is more accurately designed as 'data fusion' as they said above. That mean each sensor must be standalone, then make its data available for selection and integration as situations changes. Standalone systems allows faster upgrades in both hard and soft wares precisely because all the integrator want is data and not of control, like in the master/slave design.

I know where you are wrong in your comment that the IR sensor is 'not a standalone system'. I know what you really meant, which is tactical operation, not system. But that is just another reinforcement that in using the wrong language, you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[randomradio]

The RWR system do not 'inform' anyone. When the RWR system detects a transmission, it display certain significant information regarding the search signals. If the seeking radar is fixated on a target, the behaviors of the search signals will change in amplitude and direction, and that information will be displayed by the target's RWR scope. It is up to the pilot to determine -- based upon the behaviors of the search signals -- if he has been detected or not. This is whether the aircraft is a C-130, F-16, or F-22.

Your lack of experience is revealed in your casual language and that misleads people.

*yawn*

You pointed out that the Russians can use frequencies that can alert the F-22 pilot through a lock on. And somehow, it's the Americans who will reveal that the F-22 was detected, tracked and locked on because they will make a fuss about it, even this point I disagreed with.

When we discussed this, you were clutching at straws. You become more and more irrational as time goes by, as you are doing right now, as you did with Spectra and as you did with our discussion about SAM automation and satellite tracking and T/R module and with the arts students.

Actually, all sensors must be designed and deployed as standalone systems. You can integrate their outputs into a centralized processor unit that will display the information in a coherent and usable fashion. Currently, it is called 'sensor fusion'.

There is a difference between integration, which is COOPERATIVE among different sensors, versus the master/slave relationship. In the master/slave relationship, one sensor can be the master under one situation and the slave in another, but if any sensor is inoperative for any reason, then the entire method collapse. The cooperative architecture allows flexibility and adaptability, especially under scenarios where the pilot may deem the tactical needs to use one sensor over the others. The 'sensor fusion' concept requires each sensor to be able to operate independently or to integrate when needed.

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/elite-engineering-the-brain-of-the-f-35

The keywords are 'partial data'.

The 'sensor fusion' concept is more accurately designed as 'data fusion' as they said above. That mean each sensor must be standalone, then make its data available for selection and integration as situations changes. Standalone systems allows faster upgrades in both hard and soft wares precisely because all the integrator want is data and not of control, like in the master/slave design.

I know where you are wrong in your comment that the IR sensor is 'not a standalone system'. I know what you really meant, which is tactical operation, not system. But that is just another reinforcement that in using the wrong language, you do not know what you are talking about.

Haha. I knew you will sidestep the argument and go off in a tangent. This is exactly what I mean.

All you have are strawman arguments. You make up your own point and somehow claim I made the point, and then disprove this point you made up, and then start claiming you have more experience, which has nothing to do with anything. When you're wrong, you're wrong, it's as simple as that.

The sensor fusion on the Su-35 is rudimentary, no clue why you even brought up sensor fusion in this case. All the sensors are standalone and are fused mostly by the pilot. So if the Su-35's IRST picked up the F-22, then it's either pure luck or a radar helped point it in the right direction, because the IRST itself is incapable of early warning due to its design limitations. Your definition of "standalone" and the master/slave relation is simply another strawman argument meant to divert the audience from the real issue, ie, a radar has to detect first before the IRST comes into the picture. No one will get misled when you stick to the point.

It's the same with the Spectra. You decided that Spectra needs sampling for ACT, which is completely wrong. And then you pointed out that since ACT requires real time reaction and that sampling cannot be real time, hence Spectra cannot perform ACT, without understanding that Spectra never digitises the signal for ACT in the first place. So you are in the habit of making sh!t up, aka strawman argument, to disprove something you generally have little idea about, irrespective of your experience in what are now completely obsolete systems.

Either the Su-35 merely chanced upon the F-22 or a radar helped the Su-35 find the F-22. Considering all the advanced radars used in the environment by both sides, it's highly likely that it was not chance. You don't have to go around calling other people's arguments stupid based on unsound points when blackuday's guess is as good as yours in this case.

 

[gambit]

*yawn*

You pointed out that the Russians can use frequencies that can alert the F-22 pilot through a lock on. And somehow, it's the Americans who will reveal that the F-22 was detected, tracked and locked on because they will make a fuss about it, even this point I disagreed with.

You 'disagree' because you do not know what you are talking about, not because you have ANY relevant experience in the cockpit.

The sensor fusion on the Su-35 is rudimentary,...

That is why this article is at best dubious. Now it is YOU who are clutching at straws.

...no clue why you even brought up sensor fusion in this case.

Because -- as usual -- the US sets the standards.

Sensor or data fusion is the inevitable future. In the arts and crafts of warfare, there are points in history where if someone does not have that art and/or that craft, defeat is %99.999 certain. The bow and arrow, gunpowder, the machine gun, the aircraft, naval aviation, and the list goes on and on. As of now, the odds of Russian air power being a credible challenge to the US just got below the %50 threshold.

All the sensors are standalone and are fused mostly by the pilot.

Which is NOT what we want and where the US is NOT heading. The rest of the world -- including your India -- can buy inferior Russian technology and we will be more happy for that.

So if the Su-35's IRST picked up the F-22, then it's either pure luck or a radar helped point it in the right direction, because the IRST itself is incapable of early warning due to its design limitations.

Good that Russia's clientele relies on fortune for their national defense.

Your definition of "standalone" and the master/slave relation is simply another strawman argument meant to divert the audience from the real issue, ie, a radar has to detect first before the IRST comes into the picture. No one will get misled when you stick to the point.

No, it is not a 'strawman' argument. It was to point out your ignorance and error in understanding concepts and how to explain them.

It's the same with the Spectra. You decided that Spectra needs sampling for ACT, which is completely wrong.

No, it is not wrong. You provided no credible sources that says otherwise. The only thing you provided was a source that says 'Non'. That was essentially it. In radar detection, and countermeasures thereof, statistical sampling is the foundation. You provided nothing that says otherwise. This is real physics, not 'Indian physics'.

 

[randomradio]

That is why this article is at best dubious. Now it is YOU who are clutching at straws.

Because -- as usual -- the US sets the standards.

Sensor or data fusion is the inevitable future. In the arts and crafts of warfare, there are points in history where if someone does not have that art and/or that craft, defeat is %99.999 certain. The bow and arrow, gunpowder, the machine gun, the aircraft, naval aviation, and the list goes on and on. As of now, the odds of Russian air power being a credible challenge to the US just got below the %50 threshold.

Which is NOT what we want and where the US is NOT heading. The rest of the world -- including your India -- can buy inferior Russian technology and we will be more happy for that.

This is what I call a strawman argument.

What is sensor fusion got to do with this photo that you actually replied to in post 19?

You have the habit of not sticking to the point.

And I don't think you know what "clutching at straws" means. All I am doing is repeating your old argument you used against me.

Coming back to the topic, something pointed the Su-35 in the direction of the F-22, simple.

The fact that the Su-35 could get close enough to pick up the F-22 using a rudimentary IRST without any sensor fusion is a credit to the Su-35. I don't see why you brought in sensor fusion when the Su-35 did it without.

No, it is not wrong. You provided no credible sources that says otherwise. The only thing you provided was a source that says 'Non'. That was essentially it. In radar detection, and countermeasures thereof, statistical sampling is the foundation. You provided nothing that says otherwise. This is real physics, not 'Indian physics'.

That's because the only real source left this forum after reading the crap peddled here.

For ACT, Spectra does not digitize the signal, because it won't work if you introduce quantization errors into the transmitted signal. So, for ACT, Spectra simply retransmits the incident signal back to the source, with the only exception being the transmitted AC signal is 1/2 wavelength out of phase, and after having added the Rafale's estimated target echo, out of phase again. Destructive interference won't work very well if the signals have significant quantization errors. Retransmitting a signal does not require sampling since it acts only as a repeater, which performs a store and forward function (please don't confuse with repeater jamming here, or you will make a strawman argument out of this also).

So it's like a mirror. In a perfect world, if a mirror is equipped with Spectra, then you wouldn't be able to see your own reflection in it. There is no digitization happening for ACT. This is also why it's capable of real time reaction to any radar signal in multiple frequency bands.

Spectra uses sampling and correlating for identifying the target, which happens in parallel with ACT when it is tactically necessary. And of course, Spectra uses sampling for regular jamming functions like any other ECM system, which, again, has nothing to do with ACT.

It is not necessary for the ACT system to learn the characteristics of the signal. All it needs is the RCS of the Rafale from all aspects (that's why they test the Rafale for various different configurations in an anechoic chamber every time something new is added), and the exact location of the source radar signal, which it does to an accuracy of 0.1degree using interferometers. Repeaters do not care about PRF.

This is why the Rafale's frontal RCS is equivalent to a sparrow's.