My PAK-FA analysis

[marcos98]

guys not p.s.....




picture was taken 13 feb

 

[Dron.ru]

Some new video PAK FA: youtube.com/watch?v=bNyfClu4HVA

 

[Dron.ru]

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told reporters "Deliveries of the first PAK FA fighters to train pilots scheduled for early 2013"

 

[sancho]

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told reporters "Deliveries of the first PAK FA fighters to train pilots scheduled for early 2013"

But operational service will not start before 2015!

 

[syntax_error]

guys not p.s.....




picture was taken 13 feb

What that smalll air inlet like protrusion under the belly ?????

 

[Dark Angel]

I wonder where all the experts are gone who used to judge this beast by looking at the pictures, Wait a minute .......may be the paint is in their way now...hahaha

 

[Thomas]

I wonder where all the experts are gone who used to judge this beast by looking at the pictures, Wait a minute .......may be the paint is in their way now...hahaha

have you ever heard the term "beating a dead horse"?

for those that do not know here is a link

 

[Dark Angel]

have you ever heard the term "beating a dead horse"?

for those that do not know here is a link

beating a dead horse was the last thing on my mind i just said so cause i felt ironic abt the whole thing

 

[gambit]

In any case I wanted to comment on the missile situation.

The fact that the F15 radar couldn't get a lock on a stealth plane within visual range is irrelevant to russian planes..

It is very relevant, not just to Russian fighters but to anyone who rely on semi-active air-air missiles. A semi-active missile does not have a full radar system, only the receiver half. That is why the parent aircraft must maintain radar lock on the target to produce echoes for the missile to receive and process. Even when the missile has a full radar system, it still need initial guidance from the parent aircraft due to physical scan limitations.

their IRST sensor would get a lock on within visual range even if the russian radar was off, similar I think PIRATE would on the EF2000.

Flares. The way flares works is essentially the same as chaff, which is to present to the seeker a blanket of overwhelming noise.

I don't subscribe to the AIM120 arguments.. I don't think multiple guidance versions are a limitation of design. I think its doctrine and modus opperandi..

Design limitation impose limitations on employment and doctrines.

Also I don't disagree that when a pair of F22 are pinging enemy aircraft and launch a volley of 120s the targeting data updates to the missiles will be more accurate and far more leathal, but still , the AIM needs to get terminal phase lock.. at least the revisions I worked with need to..

With data links between multiple sources, odds are very good that the AIM-120 will get a terminal phase lock.

And still we don't know how stealthy the T50 is. In any case, in a proper long term engagement against a proper airforce fielding stealthy (if not stealth) aircraft I would be a bit uneasy simply using the AIM120 because the ideal environment cannot be taken for granted every time..

Now we are getting to the 'juicy' part...

I said elsewhere here that the greatest threat to low observable aircrafts are bi-static radars...

Bistatic radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bistatic radar is the name given to a radar system which comprises a transmitter and receiver which are separated by a distance that is comparable to the expected target distance. Conversely, a radar in which the transmitter and receiver are collocated is called a monostatic radar.

A visual representation is necessary...

The reason why a bi-static setup is more a threat to low observable aircrafts than a mono-static one is because of the deflection behavior of the signal upon a body. The majority of echo power will be lost to the mono-static radar, only 'specular' energy will be deflected back to this mono-static radar. An example of 'specular' energy is below...

Smoothness of Titan's Ontario Lacus: Constraints from Cassini RADAR specular reflection data

Histograms of the raw radar echoes imply a mirror-like specular reflection of the transmitted signal. Such an echo is possible only if the surface is extremely flat relative to our 2.2-cm wavelength.

So if we go back to the bi-static illustration above, receivers A and B will process more of the body's echo power than the original location, if we have a mono-static setup on that original 'Transmitter' location.

But as usual...There is always a 'catch' somewhere...

Prisim-Radar Team-Bistatic Radar Counteracts Specular Effect

The reason bistatic mode is so rare is that it makes things much more difficult. And that is one of the things that makes our radar special, we are going to be using that to our advantage. It makes the system more complex, but we are going to get something from the complexity.

In the case of bistatic radar, the transmitter and receiver are quite a distance apart,...

The ideal situation, reference above illustration, is 'Transmitter' to 'Receiver B' to best exploit that 90deg deflective behavior. Anything less than 90deg and there will be inevitable echo power degradation, make worse if the body is deliberately radar elusive. So against the F-22, for example, IF we momentarily suspend the aircraft in flight for a moment, Receiver B will have even odds of detecting an anomaly and will trigger an investigation. Notice I say even, not good, odds. Have no doubt we have done extensive testing of our 'stealth' aircrafts against bi-static radars. Receiver A will detect the F-22 but will probably dismiss it as 'clutter'. And if the 'Transmitter' is a mono-static radar, it will definitely discard the F-22's feeble echo as 'clutter' because the F-22 and brothers are designed to target mono-static radars, which is the vast majority of the world's radar systems out there, civilian and military.

But other than dirigibles, most aircrafts are always in motion, so in order to definitively detect, track and target an F-22 or F-35, we need a network of mono-static radars that can also work WITH each other IN bi-static operation. The bolded 'WITH' and 'IN' are very important in understanding the different modes of radar detection, particularly complex networks. Each mono-static radar must be capable of processing specular echo power but also be data linked to other mono-static stations and process higher echo power from their transmissions. The more stations in this network, the greater the processing burden...The reason why is below...

Bistatic radar noncooperative illumination synchronization techniques

Synchronization techniques used in the Bistatic Alerting and Cueing (BAC) program are examined. Particular attention is given to illuminator search, target search synchronization, RF synchronization, PRF (pulse repetition frequency) synchronization, range gate synchronization, and solution of the bistatic triangle. All of the synchronization techniques have been implemented and tested during the two and a half years of field-test demonstration of the BAC system. It is concluded that feasibility testing produced excellent results.

Note the highlighted -- solution of the bistatic triangle. The bi-static triangle is: transmitter+target+receiver. Reference the illustration above and it does not matter if it is Receiver A or B. Each receiver is part of its own bi-static triangle.

So in a networked mono-static environment, say with 20 stations, I can create a solution where each station can be in only two or three bi-static triangles at any time. This could be due to distance and data linking requirement. Synchronization between stations are STILL problematic for all the world's major technological powers, including US. Each station must be within pico-seconds of the other legs of the triangle. Any EE will testify that the longer the distance, the higher the odds of signal degradation and line noise. Amplifiers between stations? Better have the highest quality possible else you would be chasing ghosts. Wireless data links? How vulnerable to jamming are you?

So how does all this apply to a couple of F-22s, a single AIM-120 and a PAK-FA?

The bi-static triangle is much simpler and in shorter distances between each station. The PAK-FA could be as low observable as the F-22 but because of data links, each of the F-22 will be processing the PAK-FA's echo power from the other F-22's transmission, creating a more accurate target profile from its own perspective. Then transmit all that to the AIM-120. We can create an ad hoc bi-static system <snap> just like that. As of now, no country is capable of wielding an airborne bi-static radar system...Except US via AWACS and improvements in data link integrity, speed and security are on going.

Ganging up on an opponent is highly encouraged in air combat. The PAK-FA will be gang-banged by at least two F-22s or two F-35s. A dildo shaped like an AIM-120 will be prepped. We are still debating if we should develop some type of airborne lube...

 

[amalakas]

Hey Gambit

It is a bit too late for me right now, but quickly I have only one question..

what makes you think that the T50 won't use data links to the extend NATO planes plan to. It has been stated that it will and USSR planes always had (some loose form of it anyway). The 2 F22 vs 1T50 could become 8 T50s vs 4 F22s easily ... I think you can't argue onesided there.. they did say the T50 will operate that way...

 

[gambit]

Hey Gambit

It is a bit too late for me right now, but quickly I have only one question..

what makes you think that the T50 won't use data links to the extend NATO planes plan to. It has been stated that it will and USSR planes always had (some loose form of it anyway). The 2 F22 vs 1T50 could become 8 T50s vs 4 F22s easily ... I think you can't argue onesided there.. they did say the T50 will operate that way...

Possibly...But the F-22 and its brothers have an additional weapon that a PAK-FA must overcome if it wishes to call for assistance...

GB Patent 2398429 - Partitioning an antenna array

A process and corresponding apparatus for partitioning an antenna or sensor array 100 having plural antenna elements 40 into sub-arrays,...

An antenna is not the array. The antenna holds the array. The software is called 'subarray partitioning'.

In the illustration above, there is one array in 'a' and nine subarrays in 'c'. Can you see that?

Each subarray can be independently manipulated, such as one subarray will paint the target in one freq while another subarray will do the same but in another freq. Each subarray can also employ frequency agility to resist ECM. Another subarray will act as a jammer at the target. Another subarray will volume search the local area, at the freq best for that function, for other threats. Another subarray will act as a jammer at the target at another freq. Another subarray can act as a data relay. All of this -- AT THE SAME TIME. The software used is called 'subarray choreography'. This is possible only with an AESA system and only if there are sufficiently sophisticated softwares to exploit the AESA's flexibility. Like it or not, the US remains the top in the avionics dept.

Now...If you think I am making this up...

MIT Lincoln Laboratory: FAA Weather Systems: MPAR

The U.S. Government operates seven distinct radar networks, providing weather and aircraft surveillance for public weather services, air traffic control, and homeland defense. Because each network is dedicated to a single mission, there is a significant amount of overlapping coverage between them. (See Figure 1 for the locations of the current radars.) By replacing all the networks with a single network of multimission phased-array radars (MPARs), it is possible to reduce the total number of radars required by approximately one-third. This streamlining of the nation&#8217;s ground-based weather and aircraft surveillance system could potentially save the Government billions of dollars over the lifetime of the radars.

Weather Research: Weather Radar

Current civilian radar systems for weather and aircraft use a rotating antenna with a reflective surface that shapes and directs the transmitted beam. The radar beam sweeps a volume of space around the radar as the antenna continuously rotates on a vertical axis. The reflector is tilted to change the angle of the beam from the horizontal. In a phased array radar, an array of radiators shapes and steers the transmitted beam electronically by controlling the phase and the off-on pulsing of the other radiators in the array. It is this ability to form and steer a radar beam that permits multiple functions to be performed with the same radar unit: hence, a multifunction phased array radar, or MPAR. The electronically scanning array panels respond more quickly, flexibly and at a higher resolution than the rotating antenna systems in use today.

MPAR would expand our current weather surveillance network, replace the Nation's aging air traffic surveillance radars, and meet homeland security and defense requirements for identifying and tracking non-cooperative aircraft over the U.S. A single network of MPAR units, each capable of performing multiple functions, could theoretically replace seven aging, single-function conventional radar networks. It is projected that one MPAR network meeting multiple national needs can be developed, implemented and maintained on a lower cost per life cycle than would be required to sustain the existing conventional radar networks through upgrades and required maintenance.

We are testing very large AESA systems under this Multimission Phased-Array Radars (MPAR) program with AESA antennas as large as this one from an older generation...

Each of these very large array can, with subarray partitioning and choreography software, adapt the entire array in very short time to the appropriate needs at that time, even when the array is as large as the giant dish above. One large array can track a storm and guide a few aircrafts to safety without any electronic breaks in the process. The issue is no longer about science or engineering but about finance. If we can do this array partitioning and choreography on this scale, have no doubt the F-22 and its brothers are already doing it.

But on the other hand...Please by all means...doubt away

So when a pair of F-22s or F-35s gang up on a PAK-FA, odds are very good that the PAK-FA pilot will be electronically isolated from the rest of the world. Lonely way to die.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Despite my cheerleading for these 'stealth' aircrafts, I share the opinions of many pilots who have flown the F-16 and F-22 that in pure flying, as in aerodynamics exploitation, the F-16 is still supreme. There are two fighters that will catch the chicks' eyes: F-5 and F-16. I was fortunate enough to snag a backseat F-16D functional check flight (FCF) many years ago and it was orgasmic. Pulled continuous 9gs and I did not 'blow chunks'. We air refueled then got down to 100ft over the Gulf of Mexico. If there were any radar tracking us at that time, we went 'stealth' at that low altitude. Make working on these sexy aircrafts worthwhile.

Makes sense why PAF is in love with this aircraft, Thank You for your insight Sir.

 

[amalakas]

Gambit

This (what you described) is exactly what an AESA radar is supposed to be doing.. Array partitioning is a key element and reason for using one. ALl next generation AESA radars are meant to implement all you have said. It's not restricted tech to the US only. The grippen does most of that limited to the power it can generate as it is a bit smaller..

I don't believe data links or AESA modes tip the scales here.. how well these are implemented perhaps..

Sure, if you argue that the AESA radar in the raptor is going to outperform the Tikhomirov's NIIP new AESA then yes.

But then .. we cannot be sure.. there is much here...

Example .. a multimode AESA radar without decent software is useless.. we all know the US has more than enough programming and processor ability ..

The specs on the T50 state a 6 core CPU, implies enough processing power if the cores are comparable with current or even previous generation cores available.. but .. we don't know.. quite possibly if they use a version of commercially available cores.. it will exceed the raptor's processing ability .. we again don't know..

It is however reasonable to assume that an AESA radar without sufficent processing power is not going to be better than an existing conventional radar.. and hence noone in their right mind would field one..

I am a firm believer that if they made it .. it must do most of the things they wanted in the specs.. no one is so out of their minds to make something that doesn't meet specs.. or at least most of them...

 

[leon]

Makes sense why PAF is in love with this aircraft, Thank You for your insight Sir.

r u sure paf really like it specially when this is intended to go to the rival hands

 

[amalakas]

r u sure paf really like it specially when this is intended to go to the rival hands

He meant the F-16 dude..............