F-15C vs. Su-30MKI

**Bill** · 24 Feb 05,, 01:39

"We have long experience with it, and we are just now developing it to the point of making it useable on fighter AC."

Cobra Dane was the first US AESA type array. That's been in service since about 70 or so.

**Dima** · 24 Feb 05,, 02:48

i thought that the Su-35/37 is a culmination of the best work in the Su-27, Su-30 etc.

**highsea** · 24 Feb 05,, 03:20

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Cobra Dane was the first US AESA type array. That's been in service since about 70 or so.

I think 1977 for Cobra Dane. Prior to that (1968), we built the Spacetrack Radar at Eglin (AN/FPS-85). The Spacetrack could be considered to be the first active aperture array, because it used individual transmitter units at each element. Then came Cobra Dane, and then Pave Paws in 1980. Pave Paws was the first all solid-state active aperture array.

The Grill Pan is probably Russia's best radar, but it takes space feed close to the theoretical limits wrt sidelobes and RF loss- 5db in Grill Pan vs. 10db in Patriot and 12db in AEGIS (first versions). The US has since reduced these values to under 4db in Patriot, less than 1db in EL/M-2080, and .25db in AN/APG-77. This is primarily due to the fact that very low power is transmitted in the first place and MMIC can do all the signal processing jobs right at the Transmission and Reception end. (These values are from the Barton Papers)

Since space feed arrays can never acheive low side lobes or lower loss, due to their design limitations, Russia can either start from scratch with constrained feed arrays, or live with Grill Pan being as good as it gets. This is why Russia is losing the race wrt radars- the US systems were not as good originally, but there is room for upgrades and improvements in the technology. And AESA will always be more difficult to jam, because it can frequency hop and use spread spectrum technologies. Passive arrays with their ferrite phase shifters will never have this ability. This is why the S-300 needs so much power and long range missiles- the radar is succeptible to jamming. It can't use LPI techniques, so it is subject to supression, i.e. HARM. That's why the US built the F-117. It's main mission was to peneterate the protected airspace and shoot a HARM at the S-300's radar. It works, too.

**Jay** · 24 Feb 05,, 10:13

I remember seeing a 3D TVC Saturn engine..and I think I saved it some where on my puter.

But yeah, I've been saying that for a while now, India getting an AESA radar for MKI's or PAK-FA (If its built) is a very distant dream...

**ajaybhutani** · 24 Feb 05,, 20:37

Originally Posted by Jay

I remember seeing a 3D TVC Saturn engine..and I think I saved it some where on my puter.

But yeah, I've been saying that for a while now, India getting an AESA radar for MKI's or PAK-FA (If its built) is a very distant dream...

Dreams are good as they force people to move towards them . At least if we cant see a dream of having an AESA we will never have it. So better dream and work for it tahn leave it.

**highsea** · 25 Feb 05,, 07:32

Originally Posted by Jay

I remember seeing a 3D TVC Saturn engine..and I think I saved it some where on my puter.

Post it if you can find it, I'd like to see it.

The second technology demonstrator of the MKI TVC had the nozzles canted inwards, but they still only pitched up and down. The idea was that by pitching them differentially, they could improve the turn radius. e.g., in a right turn, the left engine would pitch down. This is the "corkscrew effect" mentioned earlier. AFAIK, they bagged that idea, and went back to pointing the nozzles straight back. Since turning forces are created by the horizontal component of lift, I see little value in horizontal thrust vectoring. What's the point of skidding a turn? Better to bank the AC and pitch the nozzles up to shorten the turn radius, and a lot easier to control. You can still increase the roll rate with differential vectoring if needed.

**Jay** · 25 Feb 05,, 11:32

Originally Posted by ajaybhutani

Dreams are good as they force people to move towards them . At least if we cant see a dream of having an AESA we will never have it. So better dream and work for it tahn leave it.

If thats the case, better dream for a starship like USS Enterprise or a Klingon ship...I heard they are very powerful!!

**ajaybhutani** · 25 Feb 05,, 16:04

Originally Posted by Jay

If thats the case, better dream for a starship like USS Enterprise or a Klingon ship...I heard they are very powerful!!

Well dont worry wd dream about that too. And work towards them too.

**gangsta540i** · 26 Mar 05,, 06:23

times new roman5
I'm new here and i'm worried about the hud systems in the f15's compared to the su30 mk1. Is the hud more superior.

Thanks

**leib10** · 26 Mar 05,, 16:20

I know little about Russian planes' electronics, only that the obsolete Russian avionics are being replaced with a lot of Western, especially French, ones.

**gangsta540i** · 26 Mar 05,, 18:43

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

I know little about Russian planes' electronics, only that the obsolete Russian avionics are being replaced with a lot of Western, especially French, ones.

ya it seems the hud in the mk1 is really small compared to the f15 and i also heard that their helmets also have the hud so they can still see targets when their not even looking straight ahead

**leib10** · 26 Mar 05,, 18:44

There's also the infamous Russian helmet-mounted targeting systems.

**Terran empire** · 26 Mar 05,, 19:36

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

There's also the infamous Russian helmet-mounted targeting systems.

yes for the Archer missile but I beleve that is a short range system. it requires the Russian to get well in to the Range of the Western fighter. and I think the USAF has it's Own version of a Helmet HUD under testing.