Russian Jetfighter Radar technology

[nevidimka]

I found this website which explains Russian current Radar tech, Thier attempt at catching up with the west and whats holding them back with AESA. The site gives quite interesting insight into the IRBIS-E Radar Which seems to be an impressive radar. Due to its power, it could even outdo the current latest western Export AESA radars.
While in the AESA frontier, the only thing holding them back is the availability of the Gallium Arsenide transistors to make them. Soon even the latest Gallium Nitrade Transistors will make way into the consumer markets n it will be interesting to see the Radars that will emerge from either NIIP or Phazotron.


1 thing I would like to ask is the website claims that the IRBIS-E is LPI type radar. IS this true? This IRBIS-E radar will certainly give an attractive MLU for Flanker owners and its capability surpasses the export AESA on western fighters.

link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

 

[Feanor]

Great read, thanks for the link.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I found this website which explains Russian current Radar tech, Thier attempt at catching up with the west and whats holding them back with AESA. The site gives quite interesting insight into the IRBIS-E Radar Which seems to be an impressive radar. Due to its power, it could even outdo the current latest western Export AESA radars.
While in the AESA frontier, the only thing holding them back is the availability of the Gallium Arsenide transistors to make them. Soon even the latest Gallium Nitrade Transistors will make way into the consumer markets n it will be interesting to see the Radars that will emerge from either NIIP or Phazotron.


1 thing I would like to ask is the website claims that the IRBIS-E is LPI type radar. IS this true? This IRBIS-E radar will certainly give an attractive MLU for Flanker owners and its capability surpasses the export AESA on western fighters.

link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

So they say. Given ALL their information is from Russian manufacturer literature and they deliberately misinterpret information from sources which contradict their information, EVERYTHING they suggest should be taken with a VERY large grain of salt.

They have an agenda which they have publicly admitted. They submitted a proposal for an upgrade of RAAF's F-111 in which it would be supported by a purchase of F-22 fighters to provide for RAAF's future air combat capability.

RAAF and Government chose not to take up this option and have chosen to upgrade the existing RAAF Hornets, acquire the Super Hornet as an interim or "bridging" aircraft and migrate to the F-35A Lighting II for our future air combat capability.

Subsequently they have lost ANY chance of receiving the contract to upgrade the F-111 and the chance to receive any royalties for F-111 upgrade work, based on their proposal, but conducted by others...

Their current "anti - F/A-18 Super Hornet" campaign is a classic. Look up Dr Kopp's glowing review of the aircraft when he got the chance to go for a ride in one, from 2001...

The reason it is still on their website is because of the fact it was widely published in Australian Aviation magazines and there is NO way therefore, that they can deny they ever said it...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I found this website which explains Russian current Radar tech, Thier attempt at catching up with the west and whats holding them back with AESA. The site gives quite interesting insight into the IRBIS-E Radar Which seems to be an impressive radar. Due to its power, it could even outdo the current latest western Export AESA radars.
While in the AESA frontier, the only thing holding them back is the availability of the Gallium Arsenide transistors to make them. Soon even the latest Gallium Nitrade Transistors will make way into the consumer markets n it will be interesting to see the Radars that will emerge from either NIIP or Phazotron.


1 thing I would like to ask is the website claims that the IRBIS-E is LPI type radar. IS this true? This IRBIS-E radar will certainly give an attractive MLU for Flanker owners and its capability surpasses the export AESA on western fighters.

link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

Power output alone in phased array radars does not automatically make them more capable. The problem with PESA radars is because of the single emission source, as the power increases in the TWT, the internal "noise" increases with it. This is a generic limitation with PESA's, this internal EM noise created by the single TWT effects the systems sensitivity. This factor is greatly reduced by AESA's because they have multiple power source's i.e. one for every T/R module so the internal EM noise is significantly less even if the total power output is the same. This is one of the major limitations of PESA's compared to AESA's and why AESA's are as a rule of thumb more capable in terms of detection and track radii. Now IBRIS may be more capable than BARS, simply because the degree of return lost to the decrease in sensitivity is proportional. But a US 3rd gen AESA in the 3~5kw range (ala AN/APG-79) Is liable to be more capable in basic terms than a PESA in the ~10kw range, simply due to this factor. AESA's are much more sensitive than PESA's and this is amplified in fighter radars. Add to that the technological sophistication of US systems, the frequency control and processing capabilities and I would bet my left nut that the AN/APG-79 or AN/APG-77 can see and track significantly further at less power output.

As for the IRBIS being an LPI radar system, well like everything else there are various forms and levels of LPI. Even slotted planar MSA's like Typhoon's CAPTOR use LPI techniques, primarily alternating the frequency very quickly. However this is not comparable to the LPI capability of US 3rd gen AESA's. In simple terms CAPTOR can only transmit on a single frequency at a single point in time, this is also true for a PESA. So even if the frequency is jumping very quickly, the system is still pumping out X amount of KW's into the battlespace. therefore its LPI capability will always be limited. PESA's would probably perform better than MSA's in this case because the EM energy is fragmented into hundreds of smaller beams. AESA's on the other hand transmit on over a thousand separate frequencies at any one time. So if a 1000T/R AESA is transmitting at 1kw, its only putting out 1 watt of EM energy at any point in time on any particular frequency. This makes them an order of magnitude more difficult to detect by RWR/ESM. Add to that IRBIS's huge power output (peak 21kw) on a single frequency, you think thats going to be hard to detect and identify from well outside its detection-track-engagement footprint? Easy as apple pie mate. So again APA may be true in stating that IRBIS is an "LPI" radar, but don't put that in the same sentence as its power output or a US 3rd gen AESA.

 

[Chrom]

Power output alone in phased array radars does not automatically make them more capable. The problem with PESA radars is because of the single emission source, as the power increases in the TWT, the internal "noise" increases with it. This is a generic limitation with PESA's, this internal EM noise created by the single TWT effects the systems sensitivity. This factor is greatly reduced by AESA's because they have multiple power source's i.e. one for every T/R module so the internal EM noise is significantly less even if the total power output is the same. This is one of the major limitations of PESA's compared to AESA's and why AESA's are as a rule of thumb more capable in terms of detection and track radii. Now IBRIS may be more capable than BARS, simply because the degree of return lost to the decrease in sensitivity is proportional. But a US 3rd gen AESA in the 3~5kw range (ala AN/APG-79) Is liable to be more capable in basic terms than a PESA in the ~10kw range, simply due to this factor. AESA's are much more sensitive than PESA's and this is amplified in fighter radars. Add to that the technological sophistication of US systems, the frequency control and processing capabilities and I would bet my left nut that the AN/APG-79 or AN/APG-77 can see and track significantly further at less power output.

This is more less true, but you omit one very major advantage of Russian aircrafts - big radome. By equal power, 40% larger radome diameter result in 2 times better radar perfomance.

As for the IRBIS being an LPI radar system, well like everything else there are various forms and levels of LPI. Even slotted planar MSA's like Typhoon's CAPTOR use LPI techniques, primarily alternating the frequency very quickly. However this is not comparable to the LPI capability of US 3rd gen AESA's. In simple terms CAPTOR can only transmit on a single frequency at a single point in time, this is also true for a PESA. So even if the frequency is jumping very quickly, the system is still pumping out X amount of KW's into the battlespace. therefore its LPI capability will always be limited. PESA's would probably perform better than MSA's in this case because the EM energy is fragmented into hundreds of smaller beams. AESA's on the other hand transmit on over a thousand separate frequencies at any one time. So if a 1000T/R AESA is transmitting at 1kw, its only putting out 1 watt of EM energy at any point in time on any particular frequency. This makes them an order of magnitude more difficult to detect by RWR/ESM. Add to that IRBIS's huge power output (peak 21kw) on a single frequency, you think thats going to be hard to detect and identify from well outside its detection-track-engagement footprint? Easy as apple pie mate. So again APA may be true in stating that IRBIS is an "LPI" radar, but don't put that in the same sentence as its power output or a US 3rd gen AESA.

Sadly, such "wide spectrum" modulation was not really demonstrated and confirmed. There are very big problems to combine different frequencies return without losing everything in noise. Common sense tells us what most likely such LPI technic will greatly reduce own radar detection range, and might be even more susceptible to wide spectrum enemy ECM due to again weak emitting power of each separate module.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This is more less true, but you omit one very major advantage of Russian aircrafts - big radome. By equal power, 40% larger radome diameter result in 2 times better radar perfomance.

Aperture is an important factor, but so is signal processing capability and software, in addition to the elements listed above. Anyway my point was that there is a performance penalty in simply increasing the power in PESA radars.

Sadly, such "wide spectrum" modulation was not really demonstrated and confirmed. There are very big problems to combine different frequencies return without losing everything in noise. Common sense tells us what most likely such LPI technic will greatly reduce own radar detection range, and might be even more susceptible to wide spectrum enemy ECM due to again weak emitting power of each separate module.

Well 3rd gen LPI has actually been demonstrated, so it does work, and AFAIK "wide spectrum" modulation is how its achieved. To my knowledge all 3rd gen AESA's have an LPI mode and a long range search mode, which would indicate that there is a range penalty to pay for this type of LPI. However the range penalty is not that great, i've read many reports of F-22A's tracking targets for long range AIM-120C5 shots undetected, so the range is still tactically significant.

Pure power, wide spectrum ECM may indeed be more effective, because of the reduced burn through. But that sort of ECM is reminiscent of the cold war, and very susceptible to AIM-120 shots in HOJ mode. Anyway the APG-77 would have a pretty good burn through capability at full power, thats why LPI is a mode you can switch off.

 

[nevidimka]

What is the noise level of AESA radar's? As far as the report on russian radar, They have said that the noise indeed increases as the IRBIS power is increased but the increase is quite is at 3.5dB, compared to 3dB for Bars.

Also regarding AESA radar getting targets at far ranges undetected... how does that relate to the US-Indian ACM when it was stated that Indian pilots reacted quickly to being painted by US fighters?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What is the noise level of AESA radar's? As far as the report on russian radar, They have said that the noise indeed increases as the IRBIS power is increased but the increase is quite is at 3.5dB, compared to 3dB for Bars.

I'm not sure, I've never read actual numbers.

Also regarding AESA radar getting targets at far ranges undetected... how does that relate to the US-Indian ACM when it was stated that Indian pilots reacted quickly to being painted by US fighters?

When was this? Cope India? AFAIK the US did not deploy any AESA equipped fighters to that exercise.

I can tell you one thing, Typhoon has arguably the best EWSP suite on a 4.5th gen fighter at the moment (comparable to F/A-18E/F BII), with true ESM capabilities. It had real trouble with the APG-77 in LPI mode, there was a report that it did detect the '77 when it was being tracked, but AFAIK this was a single case (hardly reliable). Typhoons DASS is far more sophisticated than an SU-30MKI and absolutely more sophisticated than an SU-30MK's (cope India).

 

[Chrom]

Aperture is an important factor, but so is signal processing capability and software, in addition to the elements listed above. Anyway my point was that there is a performance penalty in simply increasing the power in PESA radars.

Sure. But nowhere is is said what F-22 signal processing is better than in Su-35 - at least, signal processing applicable to range.

Well 3rd gen LPI has actually been demonstrated, so it does work, and AFAIK "wide spectrum" modulation is how its achieved. To my knowledge all 3rd gen AESA's have an LPI mode and a long range search mode, which would indicate that there is a range penalty to pay for this type of LPI. However the range penalty is not that great, i've read many reports of F-22A's tracking targets for long range AIM-120C5 shots undetected, so the range is still tactically significant.

Every real spec about 3rd gen AESA is highly classified, and government officials & special agencies try to hide truth behind wall of myths and disinformation. I wouldnt believe any single word said about real capabilities of 3rd gen USA AESA, from whatever sources they came.

Pure power, wide spectrum ECM may indeed be more effective, because of the reduced burn through. But that sort of ECM is reminiscent of the cold war, and very susceptible to AIM-120 shots in HOJ mode. Anyway the APG-77 would have a pretty good burn through capability at full power, thats why LPI is a mode you can switch off.

As i said, true capabilities of LPI mode implemented in latest USA AESA radars remains unknown. There are many speculations, but no hard facts.

Generally, i'm extremely skeptical about such capability. If it is technically possible, similar capability should be achieved long ago in big SAM systems, which have much lower constraints regarding power issues and computing power - and also have even more need in "stealthy" radar.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Every real spec about 3rd gen AESA is highly classified, and government officials & special agencies try to hide truth behind wall of myths and disinformation. I wouldnt believe any single word said about real capabilities of 3rd gen USA AESA, from whatever sources they came.
As i said, true capabilities of LPI mode implemented in latest USA AESA radars remains unknown. There are many speculations, but no hard facts.

Generally, i'm extremely skeptical about such capability. If it is technically possible, similar capability should be achieved long ago in big SAM systems, which have much lower constraints regarding power issues and computing power - and also have even more need in "stealthy" radar.

Unfortunately the Earth is round. Not flat. When a radar can be made to RELIABLY detect beyond visual range of a ground based radar, (about 40-50k's) then SAM's will be competitive against airborne radars.

Most modern "fighter control" radars can manage detection ranges of up to 200k's, whereas most modern ground based radars can technically detect at 400k's+. The difference is however, that ground based radars (targetting capable at least) are restricted to 40-50k's range (depending on altitide of the target) because of their height above Earth.

The difference therefore is in the height at which these radars are employed. A fighter radar at 30,000 feet, despite being technically inferior to a ground based radar in terms of aperture size, power, etc can usually detect objects at a greater realistic distance. Curvature of the Earth unaviodably has EVERYTHING to do with this.

I am quite sure that the radar systems used in connection with S-300 and S-400 SAM's are superior in power and range to that fitted to the F-35 (for instance) but they are restricted by the fact that they are mounted only a few meters above ground, whilst the APG-81 is employed several thousand metres above ground...

One interesting fact is this. ESM typically outranges active radar systems by a substantial margin and due to the generally secretive nature of this type of system, any estimation in the public domain is pure guess work...

 

[Chrom]

Unfortunately the Earth is round. Not flat. When a radar can be made to RELIABLY detect beyond visual range of a ground based radar, (about 40-50k's) then SAM's will be competitive against airborne radars.

Most modern "fighter control" radars can manage detection ranges of up to 200k's, whereas most modern ground based radars can technically detect at 400k's+. The difference is however, that ground based radars (targetting capable at least) are restricted to 40-50k's range (depending on altitide of the target) because of their height above Earth.

All this, what it have to do with my argument?

Besides, it is still very important for ground radar to detect at 400+ km. Modern combat aircrafts fly at low alt much, much rarer when one could suppose from your words.

...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sure. But nowhere is is said what F-22 signal processing is better than in Su-35 - at least, signal processing applicable to range.

Logic says so:

1) Due to the fequency modulation AESA's in general need more processing capability to actually work.

2) With a lead of 2 generations in array technology you don't think that the AN/APG-77's software and processing capability would not have evolved at the same rate?

3) R&D $$$

Anyway processing capability and software do have an effect on the maximum range of a radar, they also have an effect on every other aspect of the radars performance.

Every real spec about 3rd gen AESA is highly classified, and government officials & special agencies try to hide truth behind wall of myths and disinformation. I wouldnt believe any single word said about real capabilities of 3rd gen USA AESA, from whatever sources they came.
As i said, true capabilities of LPI mode implemented in latest USA AESA radars remains unknown. There are many speculations, but no hard facts.

The USAF/USN have stated that they have this capability, pilots and personell from 3rd party's have seen its effects and commented on it, but because the exact technique used to create this effect is classified you are going to choose to believe it doesn't exist? Well if thats your perogative then thats fine by me.

Generally, i'm extremely skeptical about such capability. If it is technically possible, similar capability should be achieved long ago in big SAM systems, which have much lower constraints regarding power issues and computing power - and also have even more need in "stealthy" radar.

First, there has not been a large SAM system deployed with an AESA radar (apart from THAAD and PAAMS), therefore this wasn't possible.
S-300PMU/S-400 both use a PESA search radar, as does PATRIOT. Pluss these systems use SARH missiles, and that sort of illumination can never be LPI.

Anyway there is little point in a larger SAM system using such LPI techniques, the drop in radar performance would not be worth the benefits, simply because systems like that have a large EM footprint anyway.

If you want to choose to believe that LPI is simply a ploy, and the USAF/USN are simply lying about it, and several other pilots from other nations are in cahoots, even when its technique can be explained in principle, simply because its exact nature remains classified, then I'm not sure what you are going to believe. Perhaps this conversation is an exercise in futility.

 

[nevidimka]

This is an small news about the AESA on PAK FA.

What I find interesting is the "The L-band AESA is to be housed by the aircraft's moving slats."

 

[Feanor]

Unfortunately the Earth is round. Not flat. When a radar can be made to RELIABLY detect beyond visual range of a ground based radar, (about 40-50k's) then SAM's will be competitive against airborne radars.

Most modern "fighter control" radars can manage detection ranges of up to 200k's, whereas most modern ground based radars can technically detect at 400k's+. The difference is however, that ground based radars (targetting capable at least) are restricted to 40-50k's range (depending on altitide of the target) because of their height above Earth.

Datalink to AWACS, and use them to guide the missile. Sorry for the off topic, but SAMs are part of an IADS, not independent units. The IADS includes abovementioned airborne radars.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Datalink to AWACS, and use them to guide the missile. Sorry for the off topic, but SAMs are part of an IADS, not independent units. The IADS includes abovementioned airborne radars.

That kind of defeats the point of having your GB radar operating in the first place doesn't it, which is what was being discussed.

 

[Feanor]

It can operate in case your AWACS goes down, giving redundancy coverage. Also if your GBAD are all datalinked, I would imagine you can use the radar of one SAM to guide a missile fired by another SAM, provided the missile has the range of course.

 

[Salty Dog]

Unfortunately the Earth is round. Not flat. When a radar can be made to RELIABLY detect beyond visual range of a ground based radar, (about 40-50k's) then SAM's will be competitive against airborne radars.

Have a look at Raytheon´s Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar (ROTHR). It has the capability acquire and track small airborne targets up to 2500 Nm. ROTHR Factsheet.

 

[Iam]

Have a look at Raytheon´s Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar (ROTHR). It has the capability acquire and track small airborne targets up to 2500 Nm. ROTHR Factsheet.

Not sure if this is the same technology that the Aus govt provided/worked with US. Something like this was being used by Aus to monitor US use of airspace during GW2.