Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[homcha]

Su-27 :thumbup:

[Dudikoff]

The capabilities of US radars seem to be more in the public sphere, applying the same increases in detection / track / engage ranges that were claimed for a similar software / processor upgrade on a contemporaneous US radar would be reasonable wouldn't it ?

 

Another example might be the AN/APG-71 which is described as a digitized version of the AN/AWG-9 and also gets a similar range boost supposedly although the antenna size and power are the same (most changes in the antenna are described to be in the sidelobe designated area for better ECCM properties).

 

So, given that the Soviet 80's digital processing technology was considerably behind the western one, so a 50% might seem somewhat more plausible in that regard (not saying that it is true) just because the signal processing power was dragging down the full capabilities of the sound hardware design (although that cassegrain antenna was also an obsolete backup design compared to what was planned to be installed in the Su-27). E.g. if the data is correct, the N019M1 upgrade keeps the antenna and transmitter, but with the new DSPs promises up to 30-50% better target tracking and designation ranges.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dudikoff

[Alfa]

To be fair, the NiiP site does seem to be specifically talking about the radar for the Su-27S in that table.

 

No it does not.

 

At the top right of the table it says: "SUV-VEP" which is the name of the upgraded weapons control system("SUV" is the Russian abbreviation for WCS) and then goes on to list all the weaponry it is compatible with to the left.

 

The original WCS for the Su-27 is called "SUV-27" and obviously isn't compatible with the armament listed in this table.

 

Below it says: "RLPK-27VEP (N001VEP)" which is the name of the upgraded radar itself and then goes on to list all specifications below.

 

For the Su-27S its simply "RLPK-27" (N001) - "RLPK" is an abbrevition for "Radio Location and firecontrol complex"(freely translated) with the "-27" suffix simply denoting which aircraft its for - i.e. it essentially just means "radar for the Su-27", while the "N001" is actual name for the radar set.

 

Anyway, if you know a little about the radar and what it consists of, you can quickly see that the data doesn't concern the original N-001. just to take an example look at the "digital processor: "Baguette 55-04.02" - i.e. not the original Ts100.

 

Which leads me to..

 

The table says the radar can engage 1 target* (*2 with modernisation)

 

No it doesn't - it says the radar can engage 1 target* (*can be increased to 2"). No mention of "modernisation" here.

 

 

If the default target engagement given is for the pre-upgrade, it would be reasonable to expect the other figures to be for the same. As the Su-27SM can track 2 targets (and launch active missiles - plus satelite guided bombs apparently), that would imply that the modernisation package that takes the S to SM isn't included in the data in the table above...

 

No offense Weta, but I find it quite incredible that you can look through the table and, aside from it clearly saying which WCS/radar it conerns, miss dozens of things clearly indicating that the data isn't for the original N001 - only to pick up on the "1 target engagement", then disregard all the rest of the information and conclude it must be for the original N001 because we know that: "the Su-27S can track two targets"

 

Do we? - do we know that the Su-27SM has this capability from the outset or just that, as the table says, it is a possibility?

 

I think you should perhaps try your reasoning in revers :)

 

I think to use that data as the basis for modelling the capabilities of the Su-27SM would be to knowingly under-model it.

 

I see - so like danilop you think it better to disregard the only credible source for the N001VEP radar because the privately owned company that makes a living producing radars would willingly portrait their products far below actual specs?....and instead rely on notoriously dubvious web sites, who BTW claim to take their info from the very official Russian manufacurer web sites you don't trust to be accurate?

 

....great :D

[danilop]

... "Phazotron radar division engineer Adolf Tolkachev had sold information on advanced radars to the West. Tolkachev was executed, and a new version of the compromised radar was hastily developed. Many earlier MiG-31s were upgraded to the new standard, designated MiG-31BM".

 

...

 

Fairly good reason why Russian privately owned company would withheld exact and complete info on their product vital to Russian National Security!

 

OK - APA is rubish according to many, NiiP marketing Web material for obvious reasons is not reliable ...

 

So, still looking for that elusive source on which some bold claims were previously made (SU-27SM inferior/equal to '90s F-15c).

Edited January 20, 2013 by danilop

[Dudikoff]

So, still looking for that elusive source on which some bold claims were based (SU-27SM inferior to '90s F-15c).

 

Because the Russian radar technology level is only recently been catching up to the Western designs of that time?

 

Besides, N001 was an obsolete design (based on the MiG-29 radar design which was again based on the MiG-23 radar) from the start when the Myech radar (supposedly originally planned for the Su-27) development failed. I'm generalizing here, but even with the new processing, there is only so much that can be done compared to the newer designs (e.g. with a modern antenna designs and technologies) by the same company.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dudikoff

[danilop]

Could be, but they are catching up extremely fast - so fast that Russia was high on the agenda during recent presidential elections in the USA.

 

NO HARD FACTS WHICH COULD PROVE STATEMENTS MADE.

 

Some really bold statements have been made based on pure guessing, one of them being SU-27SM is inferior/equal to '90s F-15c.

 

No, I cannot prove that SU-27SM is superior (obviously), BUT no one on this board could prove that it isn't. ;)

 

We are beating a dead horse here, again and again ...

Edited January 20, 2013 by danilop

[Weta43]

No offense Weta, but I find it quite incredible that you can look through the table and, aside from it clearly saying which WCS/radar it conerns, miss dozens of things clearly indicating that the data isn't for the original N001 - only to pick up on the "1 target engagement", then disregard all the rest of the information and conclude it must be for the original N001 because we know that: "the Su-27S can track two targets"

 

Do we? - do we know that the Su-27SM has this capability from the outset or just that, as the table says, it is a possibility?

 

I think you should perhaps try your reasoning in reverse[/Quote]

 

None taken :)

 

You're right, the fact that they say it can provide ground mapping and surface target detection - and a number of other things (baguette processor) - implies some form of upgrade :-)

 

Actualy - it wasn't just the "1 target engagement (*can be increased to 2) " in the table that makes me think this isn't describing upgrades all the way to the current Su-27SM version, it was also a couple of other things - the bit at the end after the table :

 

Modernization

 

Provision of new types of UA:

 

TSA "air-to-air":

- Close combat missile with infrared homing RVV-MD;

- Medium-range missile with passive radar homing R-27P1 (EP1);

- Medium-range missile with an active radar homing RVV-SD.

 

TSA "air-surface" - guided aerial bomb of satellite guidance KAB-500S-E.

 

Enforcement of the new TSA (470UTE-RT, X-31P, UL, X-31A-UL) for to improve quality aviation training.

 

Introduction of a state of simultaneous attack of 2-air targets.

 

Modernization of avionics.

 

I read this as saying the ability to engage 2 targets while in TWS is part of the modernisation package that's not applied to the radar described in the table above, and yes, I'm taking the 'engage 2 targets' as a baseline capability of the Su-27SM (because I've never heard them described as not having it).

 

However, logically, I concede that if the 'modernisation' means you always get the ability to engage 2 targets, this doesn't necessarily mean that the "Can be increased to 2" only comes through the application of the whole modenisation package. It may be that parts of the modernisation features can be applied 'ad-hoc'.

 

I'm not conceding that I was wrong (:))

- It still seems to me that 'compromised' or export versions of radar systems are described in detail on that site, while un-compromised domestic systems are not - and the radar system of the Su-27SM seems to fall into the 'uncompromised domestic' bucket.

 

That, with the statement that 'modernisation' 'introduces' the ability to attack 2 targets simultaneously, still makes me think this table describes an intermediate solution, not the final / current Su-27SM upgrade.

 

 

This however argues against better range than quoted :

NIIP N001 modernisation package

 

Stage 1: Provision of ground mapping modes. Existing radar is modified with a bypass channel that allows incoming radar data to be switched to a new all-digital processing system. When a new mode is selected, radar data is sent to the new subsystems, but if an old mode is selected the data is processed as before by the existing radar hardware.

 

He claims the new dual engagement TWS mode is the only A2A mode that goes through the new processor, so presumably you might get more range in that mode, but not in STT which still uses the old processor...

 

Anyway - 2:53 AM here - my brain is fried.

[Alfa]

On the "dual engagement capability",

 

I was also a little surprised that this is stated as a further option, but then the new extra SNP mode(for RVV-AE compability) is also described(by other sources) as being similar or identical to that of the N019M(MiG-29S).

 

I remember(at the corner of my mind) reading that some exported -SMT variants using an upgraded N019 called "N019MP"(with added air-to-ground modes - i.e. similar to N001VEP) didn't come with "dual engagement" for the RVV-AE.

 

Now this is speculation on my part, but from what I have picked up about this over the years(which admittedly isn't much), there is something to suggest that the basic design of the N019(and N001) is somewhat restrictive when it comes to "dual engagment" - i.e. while looking good on paper the actual circumstances in which it could be sucessfully employed might be very narrow.

 

Besides, AFAIK there isn't a single incident where such a function has been used in actual combat although US fighter radar systems have had this capability for ages.

 

So all things considered its possible that it wasn't considered worth pursuing for the base upgrade, but can be applied at customer's request. :hmm: .

 

I'm not conceding that I was wrong ()

- It still seems to me that 'compromised' or export versions of radar systems are described in detail on that site, while un-compromised domestic systems are not - and the radar system of the Su-27SM seems to fall into the 'uncompromised domestic' bucket.

 

I don't understand what you mean by that Weta - as far as I can see its only the new AESA stuff that lack specifications and a reason for that could be that its still in development . The "Irbis-E" which is installed in Russia's new Su-35 has not been exported yet, but is described with specs.

 

The "SUV-VEP" was developed for the Su-30MK, which is a dedicated export item and first installed in the Su-30MKK for China - the Su-27SM upgrade is a "spin-off" of that. So the "SUV-VEP" is very much a "compromised" export item, but then much of the new technology currently being applied to Russia's own upgrades/new purchases was developed for varies export orders :) .

[GGTharos]

There is one, actually - one F-15 attack two Serb MiG-29's using 2DTWS. Both missiles hit.

 

I am also aware that they train to defend point targets in a 4:1 environment ( ... and that was with sparrows still! But I expect that there may have been /some/ SAM help there, even if just MANPADS)

 

Besides, AFAIK there isn't a single incident where such a function has been used in actual combat although US fighter radar systems have had this capability for ages.

[Weta43]

I don't understand what you mean by that Weta - as far as I can see its only the new AESA stuff that lack specifications and a reason for that could be that its still in development . The "Irbis-E" which is installed in Russia's new Su-35 has not been exported yet, but is described with specs.

 

You think so ? it seems to me that the Irbis-E (domestic, uncompromised) is merely 'described' in general terms:

 

RCS "Irbis-E" provides detection, tracking and measuring the coordinates of air, ground, surface targets day and night, in all weather conditions in the presence of natural and organized noise.

 

The performance characteristics of

 

Mode "Air-to-Air":

- Detection range with ESR = 3M2 - 350-400 km

 

Field of view:

- Elevation: ± 60 degrees;

- Azimuth: ± 120 degrees.

 

The number of detected and tracked targets - 30.

 

Number of simultaneously engaged aerial targets - up to 8 pcs.

 

Mode "air-surface":

- Mapping synthetic aperture with a resolution of less than 1 meter;

- Mapping of the real beam mode DALE;

- Breeding ground of moving targets;

- Support up to 4 ground targets;

- Support of a ground target with preservation review airspace.

 

Where the SUV Su-30MK (Export, de-rated) is described in detail, with specific capabilities given.

(Table not formatted properly - readers don't take data from here :-)

The performance characteristics of SUV Su-30MK2

 

? Enterprise

Name

Characteristics

Note

 

1.1

Weapon control system,

 

"Air-to-air", "air-surface"

 

Provides the use of weapons of RVV-AE, R-27ER1, R-27R1, R-27ET1, R-27T1, R-27PE1, R-27P1, F-73E, Kh-31A, Kh-59MK,

 

X-35E, AB, NAR, GS-301.

SUV-VEP

 

(Ed. SH101VEP)

 

1.1.1

Radar sighting system,

 

including:

RLPK-27VEP *

 

(Ed. N001VEP)

* Modified for the use of weapons: P-27P1, R-27EP1, X-59MK, Kh-35E

 

- Onboard digital computer

Digital computer-900

 

- Two-channel digital receiver

N001-03VP2

finalized

 

- A digital processor

"Baguette 55-04.02"

 

- A switch signal to an intermediate frequency

N001-39

finalized

 

- The master oscillator

N001-22P

 

- Adapter switch line

N001-04M

 

Type of radar

pulse-Doppler radar

 

Pulse repetition frequency

high, medium, low

 

Radar in the "air-to-air" provides:

 

- Search for speed;

- Search the measurement range;

-Illuminated air targets and sending commands to control the radio correction radar homing missiles;

- Control of missiles with heat seeker;

- Search, acquisition and tracking visually apparent purpose in the melee;

- Determination of the nationality of the goals;

- Work in electronic warfare of the enemy;

- Determination of the origin of the jammer;

- Interaction with the electronic countermeasures.

 

The number of targets to identify their origin in mode with a pass, pc.

10

The number of simultaneously attacked targets

1 ** Can be increased to 2

 

-

Zone detection and tracking, degree:

± 60

- Azimuth

- Elevation

-55 ... +60

Area search and seizure in the melee:

 

- Azimuth, deg

± 2

- In elevation, deg

-10 ... +50

 

Air target detection range type fighter (RCS = 3 m2, with probability 0.5), km:

 

- In free space:

of 100 * * At an early warning can be increased to 150 km

in the forward hemisphere

at least 40

in the backward hemisphere

at least 80

- The background of the land:

at least 35

in the forward hemisphere

- The range of the radio correction channel missiles RVV-AE km

in the backward hemisphere

to 40

 

Radar in the "air-surface" provides:

- Detection of ground and surface targets in the real beam mapping mode in the survey with a low resolution (NR)

- Detection of ground and surface targets in mapping mode with a synthetic aperture antenna with medium and high resolution (HR, BP)

- Detection of ground and surface moving targets in a mode moving target (MTI)

- Support and measuring coordinates of ground targets;

- Issue of missile seeker target indications in the X-31A, X-59MK, Kh-35E.

 

In the MTI provides detection of moving targets with RCS of 10 m2 (tank) and more, the radial velocity, km / h

15 ... 90

 

Features in the "air-surface":

Marginal zone sizes for:

 

- Mapping of the actual mode of the beam (DL)

± 450 (within the angles ± 600)

- Mariner's search (MP)

± 450 (within the angles ± 600)

- Using the Doppler beam narrowing (DOL)

300 within the angles ± (100 ... 600)

- In high resolution (FSA)

50 in the range of angles ± (300 ... 600)

 

-

Detection range, km

 

Aircraft Carrier (ESR = 50,000 m2)350

destroyer (ESR = 10,000 m2)250

w / a bridge (ESR = 2000 m2)at least 100

missile boat (ESR = 500 m2) 50-70

Boats (RCS = 50 m2)30

 

1.1.2

Electro-optical sighting system (provides ground target illumination)

OEPS-27MK

 

(Unit 31E-MC)

1.1.2.1

 

Optical-location station

 

Area maintenance, hail.:

- Azimuth ± 60

- Elevation ± 60

Large field of view and search, degree:

- Azimuth -15 ... +60

- Elevation

Small field of view and support, degree:

- Azimuth 3 x (-15 ... +60)

- Elevation

Field melee (mode "vertical"), deg.

Field capture, hail.

 

 

OLS-27MK

 

(Product 52SH)

 

-

Air target detection range, which has a thermal contrast, km: at least 30

- In the backward hemisphere for besforsazhny goal SU-15 (PMFU) at least 90

- The forward hemisphere to reheat purpose of MiG-25, flying at high altitude with a Mach number of at least 2.0

Range of the laser rangefinder, km:

- For air target MiG-21 Up to 8

- On ground targets 0.3 ... 10

 

1.1.2.2

Helmet-mounted target designation system

Viewing area of ??air space, degree:

- Azimuth ± 60

- Elevation -20 ... +60

SURA-K

 

1.1.3

An indicator on the windshield

Sils-27M

 

1.1.4

Interrogator system hardware gosopoznavaniya

6231R-9-2

 

It still looks to me like in service Russian equipment (MiG-35, post-upgrade MiG-31) is 'described' in general terms, while Export or compromised (post spying, pre-upgrade MiG-31) equipment has specific capabilities quoted.

 

The SUV-VEP is described as for an export version, which makes me think it's not the currently fielded version in use by Russia ...

[159th_Viper]

What's this about then?

 

Upgrading version of Su-27S to the level of the Su-35 (Su-35BM) 2005. Passive phased array radar N035 "Irbis" ( simultaneous tracking 30 targets and attack 8 )

 

http://www.militaryparitet.com/nomen/russia/avia/data/ic_nomenrussiaavia/59/

[Alfa]

There is one, actually - one F-15 attack two Serb MiG-29's using 2DTWS. Both missiles hit.

 

Ok so "a single incident" then :D

 

I am also aware that they train to defend point targets in a 4:1 environment ( ... and that was with sparrows still! But I expect that there may have been /some/ SAM help there, even if just MANPADS)

 

I am sure they do GG and I wasn't suggesting that the concept as such is "bogus" - just that the level of attention it attracts in forum discussions perhaps isn't really reflecting the RL importance of it considering how seldom it has been employed in actual combat.

 

But anyway, it was just a side remark to the discusson on the N001VEP :) .

[Alfa]

You think so ? it seems to me that the Irbis-E (domestic, uncompromised) is merely 'described' in general terms:

 

Well I don't know - could just be a coincidence how they chose to describe it. Niip recently changed their web domain and updated their website - on the old version they had nothing about the AESA, but an entire section dedicated to the "Pero" PESA antenna upgrade(for N001), which in turn isn't even mentioned on the new site :hmm: .

 

 

Where the SUV Su-30MK (Export, de-rated) is described in detail, with specific capabilities given.

 

What makes you think that "export" necessarily means "de-rated" - if anything lots of post-soviet export items were quite "up-rated" compared to anything found in Russian service :) .

 

It still looks to me like in service Russian equipment (MiG-35, post-upgrade MiG-31) is 'described' in general terms, while Export or compromised (post spying, pre-upgrade MiG-31) equipment has specific capabilities quoted.

 

I still think you are paying far too much attention to this Weta - e.g. while the Irbis-E(note the "E") hasn't been exported yet, it is nevertheless offered as such.

 

The SUV-VEP is described as for an export version, which makes me think it's not the currently fielded version in use by Russia ...

 

I disagree Weta - everything about it as well as the overall approach of introducing new technology already funded by export orders indicates to me that there is little or no difference. There was even some indication that previous restrictions regarding components of foreign origin may have been laxed somewhat for the purpose.

 

Anyway, I think we both are starting to speculate. My initial reason for joining the discussion in this thread was just that I read some really wild claims about the nature and capabilities of the N001VE upgrade indicating that the posters didn't realise what it actually is and, if modelled to actual specs in the game, would end up rather dissapointed.

 

The bottom line is that the N001VE isn't some new super-radar along the lines of the Bars or Irbis, but a "brushed-up" version of an old design. As ijozic explained, the N001 itself is an upscaled version of the N019, which in turn is based on a MiG-23 radar version(cannot remember the name) .

[Weta43]

What makes you think that "export" necessarily means "de-rated" - if anything lots of post-soviet export items were quite "up-rated" compared to anything found in Russian service

The Russian's historically downgraded exports. I have to go to work so can't look for backup, but I think I recall that though yes, export offerings were better than what was currently in service, they weren't 'State of the art" for Russian technology - that they held something back for implementation when they finally go the funds to implement them.

That would be the sensible thing to do anyway wouldn't it ?

 

The bottom line is that the N001VE isn't some new super-radar along the lines of the Bars or Irbis, but a "brushed-up" version of an old design

I Agree. I think even if I'm right about the specs on the site being for an intermediate upgrade rather than to the Su-27SM upgrade fielded, there will be new capabilities, perhaps increased range while in the new RWR modes as it uses a different, newer processor (:) ?), but if it were a 'truly modern' radar for the 21st century, they wouldn't have created the pero update.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Weta43
Putting quotes into quotes

[Xeno426]

IIRC Russian law stipulates their export electronic suits have to be downrated.

[Cali]

I sure as heck wouldn't sell anyone something better then what I have, that's just plain dumb to me.

[Weta43]

"that's just plain dumb to me"

 

X 2

[RoaringBones]

IIRC Russian law stipulates their export electronic suits have to be downrated.

isn't that like a Law for Most Countries when it comes to exporting military electronic grade equipment?

[danilop]

I sure as heck wouldn't sell anyone something better then what I have, that's just plain dumb to me.

 

+1

 

The first thing you do on modern export hardware full of electronics and computers is to downgrade software. Basically no one knows how the real deal works in detail. It's top secret and any attempt to publish/sell the info on this is punishable by long prison time/death sentence (I don't know US law regarding espionage and treason, but I'm sure the punishment is as severe as in Russia or anywhere else, for that matter). And software in complex DSP systems is of paramount importance - performance of modern digital radar could be significantly improved with advanced DSP processors and algorithms.

 

And somehow, most conclusions about quality of current Russian aircraft and electronics are drawn from analyzing wildly available performance data of the crippled export models.

Edited January 22, 2013 by danilop

[GGTharos]

Because they aren't crippled. No one wants to buy crippled stuff. The typical thing to do is to take out ECCM or make it very basic. The only other thing that has been done on occasion has been to reduce ground mapping resolution.

 

And somehow, most conclusions about quality of current Russian aircraft and electronics are drawn from analyzing wildly available performance data of the crippled export models.

[Alfa]

 

The Russian's historically downgraded exports.

 

Historically yes - as in during Soviet times where allies were pretty much dictated what to acquire and client states(who had nowhere else to go) had to take what they were offered....and say thank you :D .

 

I have to go to work so can't look for backup, but I think I recall that though yes, export offerings were better than what was currently in service, they weren't 'State of the art" for Russian technology - that they held something back for implementation when they finally go the funds to implement them.

That would be the sensible thing to do anyway wouldn't it ?

 

No it wouldn't. Immediately after the end of the cold war, lots of countries started to cut down on their military spending causing lots of second hand hardware to enter the market, just as arms manufactures found it harder to secure new contracts. In such a competitive environment post-soviet Russia(which was in a dire economic state) could not afford to miss out on export orders by downgrading their products like previously.

 

Additionally since defense allocations for the Russian military itself had all but dried out and therefore no new contracts awarded to the Russian defense industry, there was a very real risk that without export orders the industry as such would cease to exist - lots of companies went bankrupt, while others reverted to civilian production instead in order to survive. This in turn meant that a large part of the military industry "under forest" no longer existed and developers of high-end military systems had to look to international suppliers for varies components.

 

The irony being that while Russia placed few restrictions on what Russian companies could sell abroad(and to whom) and foreign-made components not being an issue in hardware developed for export, laws against importing military products prevented the same Russian-made systems from entering Russian service.

 

Like mentioned earlier, it seems that these restrictions may recently have been eased somewhat in connection with the Russian re-armament program - i.e. exactly to allow military technology developed for exports to be adopted(with some modification) by the Russian military. But even so - if anything the situation has been practically the reversed of what you suggested :) .

 

I Agree. I think even if I'm right about the specs on the site being for an intermediate upgrade rather than to the Su-27SM upgrade fielded, there will be new capabilities, perhaps increased range while in the new RWR modes as it uses a different, newer processor (:) ?),

 

"RWR modes" - whats that got to do with the radar? :huh:

 

but if it were a 'truly modern' radar for the 21st century, they wouldn't have created the pero update.

 

The "Pero" update doesn't make it a "truly modern 21st century radar" either - if it did they probably "wouldn't have created" the "Bars" and "Irbis" :)

[Weta43]

"RWR modes"

Typo - TWS - surprised you didn't realise given the previous discussion, but my bad. (compare "perhaps increased range while in the new RWR modes as it uses a different, newer processor" with, from my previous post : " the new dual engagement TWS mode is the only A2A mode that goes through the new processor," :-)

 

"The "Pero" update doesn't make it a "truly modern 21st century radar" either - if it did they probably "wouldn't have created" the "Bars" and "Irbis""

 

Interesting - I thought what I wrote would be easily understood as I meant it - That because of recognised severe defficiencies in the baseline Su-27's radar relative to late 20th / early 21st century Western contemporaries, there have been a series of planned or actual upgrades to the radar of the Su-27 and its derivatives, of which the one we're primarily discussing was only an early step.

I'm not sure if this is a case of my being too conversational in my phrasing, or you're just looking for things to contradict - or have I in turn misunderstood you ?.

 

Because they aren't crippled. No one wants to buy crippled stuff. The typical thing to do is to take out ECCM or make it very basic. The only other thing that has been done on occasion has been to reduce ground mapping resolution.

 

"No one wants to buy crippled stuff." If it's better than the stuff your likely opponent will have, and is cheap enough for you to afford - why not ? Otherwise who would have bough F-5's ? They're 'crippled' relative to state of the art fighters from the drawing board.

 

"Because they aren't crippled...The typical thing to do is to take out ECCM or make it very basic. The only other thing that has been done on occasion has been to reduce ground mapping resolution"

 

That's an very definite statement - you know this to be true how ?

 

I'm pretty sure while surfing reading for this thread (but am making myself late writing this so can't go search) that the radars of some "K" versions have the number of targets tracked and engaged concurrently reduced even relative to other "K" versions.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Weta43
even more typos

[GGTharos]

"No one wants to buy crippled stuff." If it's better than the stuff your likely opponent will have, and is cheap enough for you to afford - why not ? Otherwise who would have bough F-5's ? They're 'crippled' relative to state of the art fighters from the drawing board.

 

They were priced right. I don't think you have a good concept of what crippled means. F-5's were by no means crippled, they were designed with a particular price point and customer in mind. Same thing with the LSA competitions going on now.

 

"Because they aren't crippled...The typical thing to do is to take out ECCM or make it very basic. The only other thing that has been done on occasion has been to reduce ground mapping resolution"

 

That's an very definite statement - you know this to be true how ?

 

I'm pretty sure while surfing reading for this thread (but am making myself late writing this so can't go search) that the radars of some "K" versions have the number of targets tracked and engaged concurrently reduced even relative to other "K" versions.

 

I know this because I have been told this; further, there is some very definite evidence available but it's not out there for everyone to see.

 

Reducing functionality is a rather old trick forced onto people as per Alfa's description; today it's more of a 'what are you willing to pay for' deal.

 

In some cases, some technologies are barred from export, but that tends to be fairly specific for all countries doing such things.

 

The point is, saying that export avionics are crippled is hardly correct. By your definition, Su-27SM is crippled with respect to the Indian Su-30MKI/MKI2.

[Alfa]

"RWR modes"

Typo - TWS - surprised you didn't realise given the previous discussion, but my bad.

 

Ok sorry about that then :) . But the Su-27SM does have a new RWR system(Pastel) with much increased functionality/capability compared with the old SPO-15, so I thought you were refering to that.

 

This is truly modern integrated self-defense system and despite being originally developed in the late eighties(for MiG-29M/K and Su-35) is still surrounded with a great deal of secrecy. If anything I would be much more inclined to think that this would be export restricted than radars.

 

Interesting - I thought what I wrote would be easily understood as I meant it - That because of recognised severe defficiencies in the baseline Su-27's radar relative to late 20th / early 21st century Western contemporaries, there have been a series of planned or actual upgrades to the radar of the Su-27 and its derivatives, of which the one we're primarily discussing was only an early step.

 

I did understand it Weta - just pointing out that even with the Pero antenna, its essentially still an old radar design.

 

I'm not sure if this is a case of my being too conversational in my phrasing, or you're just looking for things to contradict - or have I in turn misunderstood you ?.

 

Well again my reason for joining this discussion in the first place was just to point out that the N001VE is an upgrade of an old radar and as such not on par with the more modern sets offered by the same design house. The specs published for it on the NiiP site reflects that, but as far as I can see, you have contested this throughout this discussion - first speculating that the specs were for the original N001, then later that they are for a downgraded export version and as such don't reflect the one installed in domestic Su-27SMs.

 

"No one wants to buy crippled stuff." If it's better than the stuff your likely opponent will have, and is cheap enough for you to afford - why not ?

 

Because these days its "buyer's market" :) . Look at the Indian MRCA tender for example where aircraft manufactures were falling over eachother offering ever more sophisticated solutions - e.g. Dassault first the Mirage 2000 then the Rafale, Boeing the F/A-18E upping the offer with the AN/APG-79 AESA option, RSK MIG first with the MiG-29M2 then came back with the "MiG-35" sporting all sorts of new "gadgets" including the Zhuk-A AESA although not fully developed yet.

 

I'm pretty sure while surfing reading for this thread (but am making myself late writing this so can't go search) that the radars of some "K" versions have the number of targets tracked and engaged concurrently reduced even relative to other "K" versions.

 

I don't know where you got that impression - if you are refering to Su-30MK, then its up to the customer to decide the exact composition of the package including which radar they want.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Alfa

[Weta43]

I don't think you have a good concept of what crippled means.

I've seen the para-olympics - it means anything you want it to. :)

 

In this case, it's being used to indicate the capabilities are deliberately impaired relative to the 'un-crippled' domestic version.

 

They were priced right

And that, my friend, is the precise counter to your "No one wants to buy crippled stuff." statement...

 

Su-27SM is crippled with respect to the Indian Su-30MKI/MKI2

 

No - they're different machines. A Su-30MKI with a buggy signal processor is crippled relative to an Su-30MKI with a fully functional signal processor.

An Su-30MKI with a deliberately downgraded signal processor is crippled relative to an Su-30MKI with a fully functional signal processor.

A fully functional Su-27SM is not 'crippled' relative to a full functional Su-35, just inferior.

 

A 'crippled Su-35*K* is still more effective than an F-5 (or an aging F-16), so if the price is right, and that's what you expect to meet ...

 

 

today it's more of a 'what are you willing to pay for' deal.

 

I appreciate that there's a lot more openess about the export of equipment, but the "In some cases, some technologies are barred from export" is still true, and if all the capabilities of in-service domestic equipment were a matter of public knowledge (IE, that NiiP site gave actual data for in service equipment), E.D. wouldn't have to worry (as they've said they do) about getting a visit from government officials to discuss the export of sensitive military secrets, and I suspect the CIA could cut its budget...

 

I guess we've all said what we have to say, but I'll summarise it once more then see if I can let it go (I have a poor track record for that :-)

 

1/ The NiiP Site : My impression / reading of the NiiP site* makes me think that the version of SUV-VEP described is not the one that one would see in the Su-27SM currently in service with the Russian armed forces.

 

2/ Historical precedent : History would make one expect that the in-service version's capabilities are classified, and that therefore the stated capabilities available on a public site are not for the 'in-service' version (Historically, where an in-service radar's actual capabilities have been made public/obtained by foreign goovernments, there has been a very hasty upgrade to render the information obsolete).

 

E.D.'s comments on the matter : E.D. have said that they were concerned about the Russian Govenments reaction to their modelling an accurate representation of an in (Russian) service Su-27SM.

That would imply that information freely available in the West (like the NiiP site) doesn't fully describe the capabilities of that plane**

 

*(What could be described as circumstantial evidence from description detail levels and the "additional modernisation brings the "Introduction of a state of simultaneous attack of 2-air targets" statement :-)

**(or at the very least, the Russian Govt would like us to think it doesn't and that there isn't enough publically available data to be sure one way or the other).

Edited January 22, 2013 by Weta43