Can Phalcon AWACS + SU 30MKI Counter J20

[satishkumarcsc]

That depends on the techs and imo the fact that it was a Growler and not a normal F18SH that made the kill tells us something about how it was able to detect and guide weapons. Also missiles today can be fired before they have a lock on the target, just by GPS data and mid course guidance of the fighter, or an AWACS for example and if the missile is close enough, it will get a lock itself.
That's why I said, a Rafale with full SPECTRA and FSO capabilities + the MICA IR / METEOR combo should be able to detect and engage targets even without radar detection, the question is at what ranges and will the opponent still have the first shot advantage?

Yes the rafale and E/A 18G was able to do it. But the F 22 also killed F 15 in the ratio of 15:1. What happened was the Rafale and the E/A 18G got closer to the F 22 as the F 22 couldnt get a proper lock on. It then boiled down to pilot skills.

*I am not sure if it was the Rafale or the Mirage 2000. but am sure it was a gun kill. DBC can clarify it for you.

The EW actually kicks in for the final phase of the missile where the missile guidance is taken over by the onboard radar. IR missiles can still be fooled by flares pretty well that is why the world is moving towards dual seekers.

 

[sancho]

Yes the rafale and E/A 18G was able to do it. But the F 22 also killed F 15 in the ratio of 15:1. What happened was the Rafale and the E/A 18G got closer to the F 22 as the F 22 couldnt get a proper lock on. It then boiled down to pilot skills.

*I am not sure if it was the Rafale or the Mirage 2000. but am sure it was a gun kill. DBC can clarify it for you.

The EW actually kicks in for the final phase of the missile where the missile guidance is taken over by the onboard radar. IR missiles can still be fooled by flares pretty well that is why the world is moving towards dual seekers.

It's said that an UAE Mirage 2000-9 had a gun kill, but that's not the point here. It's just about if detection of a stealth fighter by AWACS, or MKI/MMRCA would be possible.

 

[peaceful]

such discussion is totally meaningless.

when your fancy awacs + SU 30 can be used to counter J-20, you need to face a real situation: China will have its Su-30 comparable fighters made in China, it is called J-16.

learn something.

 

[dbc]

Yes the rafale and E/A 18G was able to do it. But the F 22 also killed F 15 in the ratio of 15:1. What happened was the Rafale and the E/A 18G got closer to the F 22 as the F 22 couldnt get a proper lock on. It then boiled down to pilot skills.

*I am not sure if it was the Rafale or the Mirage 2000. but am sure it was a gun kill. DBC can clarify it for you.

The EW actually kicks in for the final phase of the missile where the missile guidance is taken over by the onboard radar. IR missiles can still be fooled by flares pretty well that is why the world is moving towards dual seekers.

A French magazine known for making dubious claims reported a F-22 guns kill by a Mirage at ATLC. See below USAF statement and decide for yourself.

The USAF refused to comment directly about the French claims, though the 27th Fighter Squadron’s project officer for the F-22 deployment, Major John Rogers, told Arabian Aerospace: “I don’t remember the fights quite that way. In any case, we leave claims and counter-claims to the debrief.”

Lt Col Lansing Pilch, commander of the 27th, and of the F-22 deployment to Al Dhafra, was categoric in stating his view of the Raptor’s performance during the exercise. He confirmed that the six Raptors flew undefeated, against all opponents. Pilch said: “In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water.”

Arabian Aerospace - Raptor rules the desert roost

 

[dbc]

You are talking about passive detection systems. Well the problem with passive detection systems is not as accurate as the
active detection ones. Only the IR is used. Anyways even if the source is detected none of the missiles can home to the target without achieving a lock and A2A missiles are not advanced enough to do it.

And also a stealth is a Misnomer...I would rather call the fifth gen aircrafts as VLO in a particular frequency.

The United States began serious efforts at thermal management in the 1950's, the JTCG/AS-81-C-002 guide was published and several facilities equipped with the latest available infrared radiometers and digital focal-plane-array built for this purpose.

Here is a youtube video of a USN technician touching the exhaust nozzle of the F/A-18 E/F's F-414 engine. The exhaust nozzle remains cool enough to touch with ungloved hands

For easy comparison see below image of a microwaved burrito too hot to touch.

too hot = 120 degrees F. (48 degrees C.) Anything above this is scalding and can damage human tissue

just too hot to touch = 107 degrees F. (42 degrees C.)
comfortably hot = 90 to 100 degrees F. (32 to 37 degrees C.)

luke warm = 80 to 85 degrees F. (26 to 29 degrees C.) Equivalent to skin temperature (hence testing baby formula on the wrist)

tepid = air temperature, or 72 to 76 degrees F. (22 to 24 degrees C.)
cool to the touch = just below air temperature, or 50 to 65 degrees F. (10 to 18 degrees C.)

The F-414 exhaust nozzle is kept cool by an afterburner liner the liner isolates the outer casing from high temperature exhaust gas. The liner itself is cooled along its length by cold bypass, fan discharge air. If this much thought and effort went into thermal management on 4th generation aircraft then how much effort do you think we put into making a very low observable fighter like F-22 or F-35. Some more food for thought a key program objective of the 'Have Blue' project that seeded the US stealth program was to limit IR detection to 10 km at a penetration speed of mach 1 from a lower threat surveillance altitude.

The strategy of countering US VLO with an IR gizmo is more than optimistic - IMHO.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

No it can NOT.

Reason.

1. If it can then you Indians will not be spending so much money funding Russia's PAK-FA.

2. J-20 is an advanced stealth fighter, also its flight perfomance, sensors, weapons and Radar completely outclass the SU-30MKI. J-20 can super cruise SU-30MKI can not , J-20 will have AESA radar SU30-MKI does not and will not. J-20 will have PL-21 advanced ramjet AA missile, SU-30MI does not and will not be able to use it even it became aviable since SU-30MKI can not even super cruise.

PAK-FA plus AWEA support can counter J-20 if Russians manage to fix PAK-FA's engine fan blade problem so it can be stealthly.

You know the problem!

 

[nightcrawler]

The F-414 exhaust nozzle is kept cool by an afterburner liner the liner isolates the outer casing from high temperature exhaust gas. The liner itself is cooled along its length by cold bypass, fan discharge air. If this much thought and effort went into thermal management on 4th generation aircraft then how much effort do you think we put into making a very low observable fighter like F-22 or F-35. Some more food for thought a key program objective of the 'Have Blue' project that seeded the US stealth program was to limit IR detection to 10 km at a penetration speed of mach 1 from a lower threat surveillance altitude.

The strategy of countering US VLO with an IR gizmo is more than optimistic - IMHO.

you have given me something really good to study upon...thnx

 

[April.lyrics]

T-50 engine burned on show....
Неудавшийся взлет истребителя ПАК ФА Т-50 на авиасалоне в Жуковском | Видео | Лента новостей "РИА Новости"

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Thank you Guys for sharing your precious knowledge.... The thread is going good and lots of new learning for me.

Please keep up[/B]

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

An important observation is that when we consider defeating a SAM system such as the S-300PMU1/PMU2 / SA-20 or S-400 Triumf / SA-21, we must think in terms of not only defeating the missiles and their engagement radar, but defeating all of the supporting systems, the deployment model / doctrine and the IADS architecture being used. Defeating one component of such a system does not necessarily defeat the system as a whole, or even the missile battery itself.

This diagram depicts the best case engagement geometry and timelines for an attack using the Small Diameter Bomb against a target colocated with a long range SAM site, or the SAM battery itself. Level turn escape manoeuvres do not minimise the exposure time of the F-35 and in addition present a larger depression angle to the threat. The single best escape manoeuvre after bomb release is to roll inverted, and pull through. Airspeed is constrained to 500 KTAS to minimise nozzle RCS. The difficulty is that even for the best case and worst case SAM parameters for SA-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-21 the missile battery gains a robust firing opportunity. Within the ranges of interest the F-35 from this aspect can still be tracked for a missile shot by the 59N6E, 67N6E, 96L6E, 36D6, 64N6E2, 5Zh66 and 1L119 3D acquisition radars and the 9S19, 30N6E1/E2 and 92N6E engagement radars. At this range the aircraft can be tracked by the Vostok E, JY-27, 1L13, 5N84AE and P-18M 2D acquisition radars. A large fraction of these radars post date the initial requirements definition for the Joint Strike Fighter. In the contemporary IADS environment it is therefore abundantly clear that the Joint Strike Fighter cannot survive by stealth alone, as the threat radar technology has evolved considerably over the last decade.

None of these issues arise with the F-22A Raptor as it can release the GBU-39/B from a much greater range, and it can egress almost twice as fast, while it can considerably better aft sector and lower fuselage RCS performance.

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Zhuk ASE AESA - Scaling the Zhuk AE for the Flanker


One of the stated intentions of Phazotron is to scale up the Zhuk AE for the Flanker, in the manner of the Zhuk-27 and Zhuk-MSFE variants, using a 0.98 metre diameter aperture.

If we assume that such a scaled up design uses exactly the same quad module technology as the Zhuk AE does, and an enlarged cooling plate and mounting frame, then the achievable performance will scale with the aperture size. For the 0.98 m antenna outside diameter, assuming a similar unused area around the emitter array, the total usable aperture diameter will be around 0.8 metres, and the element count will sit at around 1160. If we assume tighter placement and a 1.1 metre antenna outside diameter, as used in the Pero PESA, then the total usable aperture diameter will be around 0.95 metres, and the element count will sit at around 1630, or about the same as the Zhuk-MSFE PESA design.

With a peak power rating of 10 Watts/channel the latter yields a peak power of the order of 16.3 kW which results in a radar which outperforms the N011M BARS, APG-63(V)1, APG-71 and APG-79 in raw power aperture performance. Such a radar could reach IOC around 2010 if it is funded properly, in step with the timelines for the NIIP Irbis E.

If Phazotron improve the TR channel power rating as they have stated an intent to do, then the results bear some careful consideration. Tabulating options yields some interesting results.

 

[ZEYA]

ohoo wt mannnnn ? u dont even no this ur mig 19, mig 21, and jaguar also with ur awacs can down j20 not only that f22 also may be 6 the generation also but for this only one requirement is there that for the god sake dont be down by ur self during start of take of which is quit common

 

[Vibs]

ohoo wt mannnnn ? u dont even no this ur mig 19, mig 21, and jaguar also with ur awacs can down j20 not only that f22 also may be 6 the generation also but for this only one requirement is there that for the god sake dont be down by ur self during start of take of which is quit common

Is this english?

 

[tjpf]

ohoo wt mannnnn ? u dont even no this ur mig 19, mig 21, and jaguar also with ur awacs can down j20 not only that f22 also may be 6 the generation also but for this only one requirement is there that for the god sake dont be down by ur self during start of take of which is quit common

no need for such sarcasm..... the tone of your reply sounds as if youR J20 is an eagle and what india has are all flies....there is hostility amongst us so its natural for something like this to come up.LETS DISCUSS IT WITH MATURITY....besides J20 HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED INTO A TRUE BLUE FGFA SO LETS NOT BE TOO ROYAL HIGHNESS IN SHOWING SARCASM

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Russian claims their SAM can down Stealth Aircraft... is it true ?

In late 2008, details emerged of a new multiband 3D radar system in development by NNIIRT, designated the Nebo M. The Nebo M is a radical departure from previous Russian designs.

The self-propelled Nebo M is a package of three discrete radars and a single processing and command van, all hosted on BZKT BAZ-6909-015 8 x 8 all terrain 24 tonne chassis, based on the same vehicle as the S-400 / SA-21 5P85TE2 TEL and the proposed wheeled SA-23 variant.

The Nebo M combines derivatives of three existing NNIIRT 3D radars, the VHF band Nebo SVU, the L-band Protivnik G and the S/X-band Gamma S1. While the NNIIRT slide (below) attributes the VHF component to the 55Zh6 Tall Rack, the actual antenna design is clearly based on the solid state Nebo SVU AESA design. The L-band component antenna has a reduced aperture size compared to the semi-trailer hosted 59N6E radar.

Available imagery of prototype hardware shows the VHF-band and L-band components, both of which were not previously available in self-propelled all terrain configurations, unlike the Gamma S1/S1E. The KU vehicle in the suite is the operator van. Each vehicle has an independent generator rated at 100 kiloWatts. All radar vehicles have an integrated hydraulic stow and deploy system for folding and unfolding the antenna, to support shoot-and-scoot operation, and all are equipped with dual mode GPS/Glonass navigation systems for this purpose. All radars are cited as solid state AESAs, with the capability to operate in an agile beam sector search/track regime, or in a conventional circular scan regime, with the antennas mechanically rotated.

The idea of integrating three radars, each operating in a discrete band, is novel and clearly intended to provide a counter-VLO capability. A track fusion system in the KU vehicle will be required, providing a capability analogous to the US Navy CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability)system. This technology was previously developed for the Salyut Poima E track fusion system and is now becoming mature.

Available imagery of prototype Nebo M hardware shows the VHF band RLM-M system and L-band RLM-D system.

Technical details and marketing materials for the Nebo M have yet to be released, and what is available appears to be a controlled leak by the design office, which excludes details such as power ratings and component detection/track range and angle performance. Even if the Nebo M does not achieve production status in its intended configuration, the development of self propelled variants of the Nebo SVU and Protivnik G/GE low band radars is in itself a significant advancement, as both present as effective battery acquisition radars for the S-300PMU1/2, S-400 and a range of legacy SAM systems, hosted on the BAZ-6909 both radars acquire mobility to match other components of an S-300P/S-400 missile battery.

http://www.ausairpower.net/NNIIRT-Nebo-M-System-1S.png

The Nebo-M system is clearly designed to hunt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The VHF-Band component of the system provides sector search and track functions, with the X-Band and L-Band components providing a fine track capability. By good placement of the radars relative to the threat axis, the L-Band and X-Band components illuminate the incoming target from angles where the target RCS is suboptimal. Attempts to jam the Nebo-M will be problematic, since all of these radars have a passive angle track capability against jammers, as a result of which usage of a jammer permits passive triangulation of the target using three angle track outputs. The RLM-S and RLM-D have better elevation tracking accuracy than the RLM-M, and therefore the Nebo M should be capable of producing high quality tracks suitable for midcourse guidance of modern SAMs and full trajectory guidance of legacy SAMs.