Su-35 Irbis

[Pilotasso]

^^^^Not very advisable intead. You see, you cant range targets with IR. SO basicaly you would datalink it into the first hot halo the missile could see. The sun or any reflection of it (on water for example), a friendly plane, a barbecue, or a greenhouse. Anything goes, or nothing at all if clouds are present.

 

Think you might be underestimated the Ruski engineers :)

 

 

 

then if IRBIS is of comparable technology the mech antenna is there to increase the FOV past 90 derees off the nose on either side at a time.

[Alfa]

Bingo.

 

Well the Irbis is not entirely comparable technology in the sense that it is PESA while the radar in the picture(Zhuk-AE) is AESA, but as Trident correctly pointed out, there are several Russian PESA sets with fixed antenna.

 

The "Irbis" is a further development of the N011M "Bars", which in turn is based on the N011. The N011 had a mechanically actuated planar slotted array antenna - with the N011M they mounted a phased array antenna on the existing drive.

 

It is correct that the N001 and N019 supposedly are restricted to some 120 deg of roll before loosing track(although there are people "in the know" who dispute this) . Anyway, I fail to see what relevance this has to the discussion of the Irbis radar - these designs have cassegrain antennas, which is *completely* different(and "ancient") technology.

 

I don't know about the Zaslon, but then I think it is worth remembering that the Zaslon was the very first phased array radar to be installed on a fighter plane - some 30 years ago when even the US regarded the technology as being too immature for the purpose and only adopted it for their B1 bomber :) .

[Pilotasso]

MAkes sense, imagine an extreme F-pole past 90 degrees off (still guiding the missile while infact retreating). Thats because the flanker will have to rely on SARH with the most probabale oppositor having AMRAAM.

[Alfa]

MAkes sense, imagine an extreme F-pole past 90 degrees off (still guiding the missile while infact retreating).

 

Yes but I think the main rationale behind it has more to do with the ability to cover a wider search area relative to aircraft heading - i.e. to be less dependant on external early warning assets to find the targets to begin with.

 

Thats because the flanker will have to rely on SARH with the most probabale oppositor having AMRAAM.

 

Why would the Flanker have to rely on SARH?

[Vekkinho]

^^^^

Pilotasso probably meant Flanker B from 1988.

[Pilotasso]

No, because R-77 is not russias primary BVR weapon. R-27's are much more proliferous.

[X-man]

No, because R-77 is not russias primary BVR weapon.

Neither is the Su-35... ;) If they were to buy the Su-35, they probably would get some R-77 with it. This will not happen though...

[Vekkinho]

No, because R-77 is not russias primary BVR weapon. R-27's are much more proliferous.

 

 

Exactly, and the other thing is there's not too many "live" R-77 in use.

[Pilotasso]

You are forgeting about Su-27SM wich supposedly were to be armed with R-77's for multi engagement capability, yet they probably have much more R-27's for it than 77's.

[Vekkinho]

VVS modernization to a Su-27SM standard is already taking place and is supposed to end in 2010. Total number of Su-27S airframes awaiting this mid-life upgrade is yet unclear. Last upgrade contract signed by KNAAPO happened in autumn 2006 and 24 airframes were to be modernized. How many active SM there is at the moment I cannot say, I only saw a couple but I saw no R-77 hanging from it's pylons.

 

MiG-31M however had live Adders in this video:

http://www.aviapedia.com/videos/fighters/Mig-31/MiG-31_Smotr.wmv

 

During test phase of R-77 compatibility with phased array N001V (Su-27SM) and N001VEP intended for Chinese Su-27MK Vympel had a lot of problems with integrated bypass link used to guide Adder during the initial stage of it's flight. R-77 is pretty sleek and fast missile with very low RCS so it would often lose guidance, especially if a target puts it a beam. Guess it works great against drones :)

 

In the end mass produced Alamos turned out more reliable and better bang for buck. Launched in pairs as usual to reduce asymmetric load and drag, two Alamos cost less than a single R-77.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

In the end mass produced Alamos turned out more reliable and better bang for buck. Launched in pairs as usual to reduce asymmetric load and drag, two Alamos cost less than a single R-77.

And Alamos can be equipped with active radar seekers too.

[Vekkinho]

^^^^^^^

Did not know that!

[X-man]

And Alamos can be equipped with active radar seekers too.

Are you sure?!? That's amazing!!! :megalol:

[Pilotasso]

LOL hes referring to R-27EA seeker wich is NOT in service and hasnt been developed for 20+ years.

[X-man]

LOL hes referring to R-27EA seeker wich is NOT in service and hasnt been developed for 20+ years.

Noo s**t! ;) I dont think anyone has missed the countless of threads on the matter....:lol:

 

Cheers

[Alfa]

Neither is the Su-35... ;) If they were to buy the Su-35, they probably would get some R-77 with it.

 

Quite.

 

This will not happen though...

 

It won't? :) .

[X-man]

Nope :D j/k. I would guess though, that they will go ahead with the PAK-FA and having Su-27SM til that time comes... :)

[tflash]

Su-27SK flight manual, page 152:

"To avoid loss of automatic tracking [lock] when radar is SOI, maneuver the aircraft within 90 deg. of bank." I believe ED had actually modeled this in one of the game versions at some point.

That's correct, I believe it can roll through +/-120 deg.

 

 

Simpson's book mentions roll gimball for stabilisation to keep the scan pattern (which is mostly much wider in azimuth than in elevation) independent of attitude of the aircraft on early pulse radars. I guess this makes sense, and indeed in today's western radars this error correction is done electronically.

 

In STT mode, this still seems somewhat strange to me, since you have a narrow beam, that is in fact circular. I suppose it are the parallax errors when there is a beaming angle that have to be compensated. I can understand this is not so simple to solve electronically, since it has to do with beam formation, not with interpretation errors in return signals.

 

This might explain why more advanced western radars can cope with it electronically where most Russian designs would rely on physical roll stabilisation.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Did not know that!

9B-1103M is the active radar seeker for Alamo series of missiles. ;) :doh: