Flankers versus Falcons

[Alfa]

Yes, 6 targets, get 6 AMRAAM simultaneous attacks.

EDIT:

Watch this portion of video at 4:30: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrMilitaryAviation#p/u/275/4uCZSVPBmp0

Old video but shows APG-68 (probably early pre V5 variant) multi targeting capability at long range. Should be similar to APG66V2A

Thanks - although in the video it only mentions guiding missiles to "several" targets.

The reason I asked is that "simultaneous engagement" is often misinterpreted as being the number of targets the radar can simultaneously guide missiles towards, when it actually means the number of tracked targets the WCS can prioritise and prepare to fire on as soon as missile guidance channels are freed up - i.e. you can have:

Number of simultaneously tracked targets: 10

Number of simultaneously engaged targets: 6

Number of guidance channels: 2

But I don't know about the APG-68 - could be that it has 6 channels.

None taken but it is what is writen on that page although they do not specify any actual figures. What I do know is that the APG-80 suposedly has much higher output power (UAE recieved special modification because the standard generators on PW engines cannot suply enough power for it) coupled with even better signal processor, on top of being AESA VS Mech array of previous generations.

Well thats the problem Pilotasso - because higher output power alone simply cannot provide that kind of range increase.....retaining the antenna area, you would need some totally insane increase in output power in order to just double range. As far as AESA goes - yes phased arrays are more efficient(e.g. elimination of sidelobes), but output power is limited by the number of TR modules on the antenna and since exactly antenna size is an issue with the F-16, there are natural constraints as to how powerful the APG-80 can be.

Of course that doesn't mean that it can't have higher output than the original "plate antenna" version, but generally speaking power output is not among the many virtues of AESAs - e.g. even if you have the antenna space for thousands of TR modules, there is a cooling issue......so in terms of "mean power" a PESA would be a better bet.

DIdnt say all APG-66/68 butcher the N001, just the APG-80. The older ones however do not stay behind much in range but are much more versatile and reliable.

I would agree that an APG-80 would "butcher" an N001 in terms of sophistication, versatility and reliability(no contest).....but I am much less convinced about exactly the range bit :) .

Suposedly is to be the Irbis radar for Su-35BM.

Ah ok - yes could be.

[Frostie]

What else have you been doing in this thread?

 

Have you posted anything informative? You may disagree with me all you like, but so far your only argument has been 'I don't know, so you can't know', and 'Uh, I can find a brochure too'.

I've replied to Pilotasso's claim that all relation to N001's radar performance was against bombers, when in fact there is no such record as the targets of older radars have never been specified but the usual comparison by the Russians has been using an RCS of 3 to 5 m2.

 

You countered this with your brochure BS which had nothing to do with an N001, go figure.

[Alfa]

I've replied to Pilotasso's claim that all relation to N001's radar performance was against bombers, when in fact there is no such record as the targets of older radars have never been specified but the usual comparison by the Russians has been using an RCS of 3 to 5 m2.

 

IIRC the detection range figures published for the N001 are some 90 -100 km against RCS of 3sqm, with tracking range in the 70-80 km area.

[GGTharos]

I've replied to Pilotasso's claim that all relation to N001's radar performance was against bombers, when in fact there is no such record as the targets of older radars have never been specified but the usual comparison by the Russians has been using an RCS of 3 to 5 m2.

 

You countered this with your brochure BS which had nothing to do with an N001, go figure.

 

You're saying that you can't compare raw theoretical radar capability if you start for a known basis? :)

[exec]

Hi everybody, this is my first post here.

 

 

IIRC the detection range figures published for the N001 are some 90 -100 km against RCS of 3sqm, with tracking range in the 70-80 km area.

This is probably true. Newer N011M BARS (PESA) has a range of 140km vs 2m^2 target.

 

 

 

Let's keep it to a realistic scenario, and compare Poland's F-16 Block 52+ with a Russian Flanker. So no APG-80 here.

I think we can compare F-16 Bl 52+ even with the Indian Flanker (MKI).

 

I do not think the Polish F-16 radar has a range advantage. It has an automation advantage and provides better SA and TWS targetting, + the whole AIM-120C edge.

We know N011M range is 140 vs 2 m^2 target, so it should be able to detect F-16 from ~110km. APG-68(v)9 range versus Flanker (20 m^2) is probably around 190km (100-110km vs 2 m^2), so if you ask me - F-16 Bl 52+ has a radar range advantage vs MKI.

 

 

 

It doesn't fly as high and as fast as the Flanker, which also impacts BVR engagements, and we know little to nothing about how ECM comes into play (so it might end up in a classic dogfight).

That's not entirely true. F-16 Bl 52+ T/W ratio is much better than MKI's, so the Falcon should have better acceleration.

 

ECM:

Su-30MKI has ELTA El/M-8222

F-16 Bl 52+ has ALQ-211(v)4 (AIDEWS) plus ALE-50 towed decoy.

[Krippz]

Hi everybody, this is my first post here.

 

 

 

This is probably true. Newer N011M BARS (PESA) has a range of 140km vs 2m^2 target.

 

 

 

 

I think we can compare F-16 Bl 52+ even with the Indian Flanker (MKI).

 

 

We know N011M range is 140 vs 2 m^2 target, so it should be able to detect F-16 from ~110km. APG-68(v)9 range versus Flanker (20 m^2) is probably around 190km (100-110km vs 2 m^2), so if you ask me - F-16 Bl 52+ has a radar range advantage vs MKI.

 

 

 

 

That's not entirely true. F-16 Bl 52+ T/W ratio is much better than MKI's, so the Falcon should have better acceleration.

 

ECM:

Su-30MKI has ELTA El/M-8222

F-16 Bl 52+ has ALQ-211(v)4 (AIDEWS) plus ALE-50 towed decoy.

 

 

Welcome aboard! Great informative first post.

[Moa]

Does anyone know anything about Su-27SM, avionics, payload, number in service?

 

Edit: Does Su-30 qualify as a flanker variant? ;)

 

Hi Topol. According to Wikipedia article number of Flankers of all types in service is 680, of which 449 are in Russian service. Doesn't say how many are Su-27SM, but it would be smaller than this.

 

For reference, wikipedia gives approximate numbers of F-16 as 4500+, F-15 as 1198 (630 remain in US use), F-18 as 1480 (A-D), F-18 E/F 400, MiG-29 as 1600+.

[exec]

Hi Topol. According to Wikipedia article number of Flankers of all types in service is 680, of which 449 are in Russian service. Doesn't say how many are Su-27SM, but it would be smaller than this.

Russians have ~50 Su-27SM.

[EtherealN]

Wikipedia is an awesome source... :P

 

A tip: don't regard Wikipedia as authoritative, ever. While it is usually pretty close to the mark, the real use of it is to get a good list of sources to read through for primary material. :P

[Wilde]

Flanker (20 m^2)

 

Ehmmm :doh:

[mvsgas]

A lot of this stuff depends on the pilot and his/her training. If you put a good pilot in a older bird they'll have a very good chance in beating a new pilot in a newer bird. Also, one little mistake and that's all it takes for some jets to get ahead. What are the G's that the flankers can sustain during a fight? The F-16 is a 9 G fighter. Of course different scenarios, each aircraft has it's pros and cons.

Some things to consider, F-16 is max rated at 9 g, this does not mean it can do 9g all the time. Also, depends on the block if it can sustain 9g. F-16 or any other aircraft for that matter have a max g setting or limit. But with added munitions or weight they may not be able to achieve or sustain their maximum g limit.

 

My point is a fully loaded SU-27S with 18,000 lbs of fuel will obviously not be able to achieve it's it maximum g capability, same goes for the F-16.

 

I believe they are both (SU-27 and F-16) 9G capable, but at what weights can they reach 9G and sustain it? I think a F-16, block 30 can achieve and sustain 9G turn with 4 missiles (AIM 120x2 and AIM-9x2) but not sure what effect does any other station load would do.

 

Sorry I tent to ramble so hopefully this makes since

[exec]

Ehmmm :doh:

Don't tell me you didn't know that! :doh: Average forward RCS of the Flanker is ~20 m^2.

[tflash]

I had the same feeling ;-)

 

But then again, ECM radically changes this in the first place, and besides detection range we should also look at tracking range, which could be significantly smaller.

 

For what it's worth, I'm trying some Tac missions in F4:AF with F-16 Blk 52 (although my favourite is the Blk 50) against any Flanker the sim has to offer and certainly when I load R-77 on the adverse party it gets a little tricky, but then again I'm not such a good virtual pilot.

[Vekkinho]

Some things to consider, F-16 is max rated at 9 g, this does not mean it can do 9g all the time. Also, depends on the block if it can sustain 9g. F-16 or any other aircraft for that matter have a max g setting or limit. But with added munitions or weight they may not be able to achieve or sustain their maximum g limit.

 

 

 

CAT settings, right?

[Alfa]

Don't tell me you didn't know that! :doh: Average forward RCS of the Flanker is ~20 m^2.

 

The forward RCS of an Su-33 might be 20 m^2......if you count in the aircraft carrier :D .

[exec]

The forward RCS of an Su-33 might be 20 m^2......if you count in the aircraft carrier :D .

Ha ha.

 

This is the real value.

 

Ok, maybe it's closer to 19 m^2.

[tflash]

Exec, come on, you're just second-guessing. Please quote a credible source for these claims?

[exec]

Exec, come on, you're just second-guessing.

Am I?:music_whistling:

 

Please quote a credible source for these claims?

So how about Pogosyan(Sukhoi's director) article?

 

http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM

[GGTharos]

Both F-15 and Su-27 have a pretty large head-on RCS, actually. A lot of jets do, but those two seem to be downright special.

 

Put your bandit 30deg off your nose though and the RCS suddenly drops by half or more (no view into the inlets, less corners to beacon at you from various places, etc). N/A LOFC. :)

 

The forward RCS of an Su-33 might be 20 m^2......if you count in the aircraft carrier :D .

[mvsgas]

CAT settings, right?

 

For the software side, yes, the cat setting on a F-16 will affect the g limits.

But, there are also physical limitations. Is mostly dependent on the block, and the equipment you hang from the aircraft. Some pods can't take 9g, some weapons can be damaged or may not separate properly form aircraft after high g.

This is not F-16 specific, all aircraft I know, are affected by what they carry, weight etc, in terms of the g they can pull. There is also the structural limits of the aircraft to consider. 370g wing tank at 9g can add 22000lb per tank.

Edited February 28, 2010 by mvsgas

[monotwix]

When loaded on the wings though, with that it makes less strain on the wings holding the fuselage.