Sukhoi Pak-Fa vs. F-22 Raptor: Who is better ?

[1] Stealthy Parameters
Radar Cross Sections cited (X-band):
F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m², Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m² (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m², Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m²;
PAK-FA All Aspect = 0.01 m²;
Su-35-1 Front Aspect= 2 m².

So we can conclude that F-22 better in stealthy parameter, but we must underline that the stealthy gap between Pak-fa and F-22 is become narowwer , and will lost the significantce in fews years become.

[2] Thermal Sensor Paremeter

Pak-Fa will be equipped with latest IRST that Russian has. In terms of thermal sensor Fak-fa has an advantages compared with the F-22. F-22 even now is not equipped with heat sensors. With their IRST latest technology, Pak -Fa can detect F-22 in the distance 70 km, even Pak-fa can detect Amram 120 firing in such of distance.

As like Pak-fa, i think F-22 designer will include IRST as upgrade package in tomorow years. And in term sensor and computation technology we must accept that US is the master.

[3] Radar parameter Radar Range Figures used are:
F-22A APG-77 = published figures (AW&ST - pessimistic);
F-35A APG-81 = published figures (AW&ST - pessimistic);
PAK-FA IRBIS-E N035 Best Case published figures (Tikhomirov NIIP);
Su-35-1 IRBIS-E N035 Worst Case published figures (Tikhomirov NIIP)

Irbis-E can detect and track up to 30 airborne targets at one time at ranges near 400 kilometers, and attack up to 12. In air-to-surface mode the Irbis-E provides mapping allowing to attack a surface target with precision-guided weapons while scanning the horizon searching for airborne threats that can be engaged using active radar homing missiles.

Tikhomirov NIIP has provided the ability to spot super-low observable targets with RCS equal to 0.01 square meters at ranges out to 90 kilometers.

[Price Parameter]
Pak-fa price is about one-third of the price of F-22. F-22 almost imposible to lower its price.


Final Conclussion

In stealthy and radar parameter F-22 still better than PAk-fa, but this advantageous will fadded in tomorrow years. In optical parameter Pak-fa better than F-22, but as radar parameter, this advantageous also fadded away in tomorow years. In kinematic parameter F-22 and Pak-fa is comparable. And in price parameter, definitifly, F-22 cannot win this parameter , and price parameter become the most advantageus of pak-fa than F-22.

Indonesia Continues to Slowly Modernize its Defenses

Despite Financial Constraints, Indonesia Continues to Slowly Modernize its Defenses

Indonesia, although a considerable distance from being a state capable of projecting power, has begun to bring greater focus to its strategic situation, and, at the same time, it is moving toward a consolidation of the Yudhoyono era.

Even absent a blue water/blue skies military projection, continued movement along these paths seems set to give Indonesia greater brown water defensive control over the vast Indonesian island empire, and make it a more significant gatekeeper of the South-East Asian straits linking the Indian and Pacific oceans at a time when those straits are historically becoming more important.

The significant manpower numbers which the Indonesian Armed Forces (Tentara Nasional Indonesia: Indonesian Armed Forces, TNI) have maintained historically, since World War II, have been primarily for domestic security purposes. They have to a large extent operated dysfunctionally, although they have often included high-performance units.

The situation, however, began to change during the Presidency of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which began in October 2004 following the nation’s first direct Presidential elections, and greater cohesion, balance, and purpose is now beginning to appear in the TNI. Even though the Indonesian Presidency has become more constitutionally constrained and answerable to the Legislature than in than the Sukarno and Suharto eras, Pres. Yudhoyono has begun to build a distinct new ethos within government, and the TNI, and has begun what could pass for an embryonic dynasty without visibly curbing Indonesian movement toward greater democracy.

The Yudhoyono Adminitration, on December 18, 2009, announced that Maj.-Gen. Pramono Edhi Wibowo, the younger brother of First Lady Ani Yudhoyono, had been inaugurated as the Siliwangi Military commander, overseeing West Java and Banten, a post seen as a stepping stone to the Army’s highest seat. The move followed the inauguration in September 2009 of Lt.-Gen. George Toisutta, a close aide to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as the Army Chief of Staff, sparking rumors of a wider reshuffle to set up allies of the President in key TNI positions.

Maj.-Gen. Pramono’s move from chief of the Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus) to Siliwangi commander is giving credence to speculation that he may go on to higher posts, including chief of the Army’s Strategic Command (Kostrad) and even Army Chief of Staff. Lt.-Gen. George was previously the Siliwangi commander and Kostrad chief before becoming Army Chief of Staff, widely seen as the ultimate career path to becoming the TNI — that is, the overall Armed Forces — chief.

Maj.-Gen. Pramono, a 1980 graduate of the Military Academy, is the first from his year to assume the rôle of territorial commander, with the previous Siliwangi commander, Maj.-Gen. Rasyid Qurnuen Aquary, graduating in the 1975 batch. [Maj.-Gen. Rasyid, meanwhile, was named the assistant to the TNI Commander on intelligence affairs.]

With Pres. Yudhoyono’s other family member, Lt.-Gen. Suryo Prabowo, serving as deputy to the Army Chief, all military chiefs would soon fall under the President’s control.

After serving as Siliwangi commander, it would be easier for Maj.-Gen. Pramono to head up Kostrad then the Army, finally becoming the TNI Commander.

The ultimate goal is to smooth the way for the rise through the ranks of Capt. Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono, the President’s oldest son, to groom him as the country’s next leader.

Pres. Yudhoyono is not eligible to run for the Presidency in 2014, so the next two years should be expected to see Pramono promoted to a three-star general, then on to become Kostrad commander, and then to become the Army chief of staff.

What is clear, though, is that Pres. Yudhoyono is moving more carefully in building his legacy than the late Pres. Suharto, whose installation of relatives within key Armed Forces and governmental slots was accompanied by significant abuse of power. The President is clearly aware that then-Pres. Suharto’s son-in-law, Lt.-Gen. Prabowo Subianto, had been commander of Kopassus special forces and the Kostrad strategic command forces, but within days of the fall of Pres. Suharto in 1999, Gen. Prabowo’s military career was over.

Meanwhile (and apart from the positioning of presidential family members to secure key posts), the TNI, for the first time, has begun to show signs of more balanced development with the difficult goal (because of budget constraints) of achieving greater regional influence, although it has little or no capability to project sustained or strategic-level power outside its borders. Moreover, while it is clear that the Army remains, at its core, a domestic force, and the TNI Air Force (TNI AU: Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Udara) is hampered in its ambitions by high capital cost requirements, the TNI Navy (TNI AL: Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Laut) would be a significant and initial component of Indonesia’s ability to project any capability (including shared sea control duties) regionally.

The Indonesian media, for example, reported on December 31, 2009, that the Indonesian Navy was ready to modernize its fleet of vessels and aircraft in 2010 as part of its effort to fulfil the minimum essential force (MEF) capability required by the Government. Navy Chief of Staff Vice Adm. Agus Suhartono said at a press conference on December 30, 2009, that the MEF concept had been designed to fulfil core duties and ensure the existence of certain capabilities to face threats in defending the state ideology and territorial integrity, protecting the nation’s honor and safety, and enforcing the law in Indonesian waters when a threat may be larger than the available force.

VADM Agus said that the Navy had three strategies to reach the MEF capability: to procure new weapons systems by prioritizing domestic strategic industries; increasing the capabilities of existing systems; and phasing out systems which were no longer effective. He noted: “We will be procuring corvettes, landing ship tanks [LSTs], missile-equipped fast boats [KCR], [a] trimaran KCR and training ship. As for aircraft, a contract has been signed to procure three CN-235 maritime patrol aircraft.”

The Navy would replace the German-built sail-training barquentine, KRI Dewa Ruci, which entered service in 1953, with a new and longer (at 105m LOA) tall ship as a training vessel for Naval Academy cadets.

VADM Agus also said that 35 Russian-made BMP-3F amphibious infantry fighting vehicles would be deployed by the Indonesian Marines in 2010. These had been proposed to be ordered in late 2008, alongside a $1-billion loan package from Russia which was to include Mil helicopters and two Kilo-class submarines.

The TNI Navy Chief of Staff also said that the President had, despite the Government’s financial condition, indicated that the Navy could expect to purchase two submarines in 2014. VADM Agus also highlighted the return to taxpayers by investing in the Navy, saying that the Navy managed in 2009 to stem some Rp 13.8-trillion (some $1.5-billion) in potential State losses by preventing illegal activities, slightly more than 2008’s figure of Rp 13.7-trillion. He said Rp 2.4-trillion was saved from illegal fishing, Rp 52.4-billion from illegal logging and Rp 11.3-trillion from various other actions, including policing illegal trafficking in commodities such as granite, coal, tin, fuel, cement, sand, and crude palm oil.

He noted the TNI Navy’s deployment of personnel and task forces to UN missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lebanon, Nepal and Somalia. The Sigma-class KRI Diponegoro has served a six-month monitoring mission under the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s Maritime Task Force, and the proposed deployment of d KRI Frans Kaisiepo to Lebanon. [The Sigma class corvette is the most modern element in the TNI AL fleet, consisting of four new-build Royal Schelde corvettes ordered from the Netherlands in January 2004 for delivery beginning late 2006. The third of the class was delivered in November 2008. The vesels are 1,692 ton disp., 90.71m LOA, and are fitted with MM-40 Exocet block II SSM, two quad MBDA Mistral TETRAL SAM, OTO-Melara 76mm main gun, and two torpedo launchers.]

Earlier, on December 21, 2009, VADM Agus had said that the TNI Navy would continue equipping with Chinese (PRC) C-802 cruise missiles, but was also negotiating to acquire C-705 missiles. "Both types of missile will be added to the armament of the Navy`s fast patrol boats and Van Speijk (class) warships," VADM Agus said, noting that Indonesian manufacturers were still unable to produce such systems, although State-owned shipbuilder PT PAL was capable of integrating the systems onto TNI Navy warships. [All six ships of the Van Speijk class, built in the 1960s for the Royal Netherlands Navy as the Dutch variant of the successful Leander-class British design, were sold to the TNI AL in 1986-89 and are still in service (as of 2006) as the Ahmad Yani class frigates.]

"Our main priority now is security in sea border areas and the outer islands of Indonesia," he said, adding that the navy would also replace some 27 of its warships with newer types and better combat capabilities. VADM Agus had previously said Indonesia’s Western waters were prone to various maritime crimes such as smuggling, human trafficking, and poaching. Indonesia has had difficult issues on all of its sea borders with India, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia, he said, adding that the TNI Navy now conducted routine patrols in the Indonesian western waters with its counterparts from India, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia. This had led to a significant drop in the maritime crime rate in the western waters, particularly in the Malacca Strait.

The TNI AL will also construct a new corvette at PT Pindad’s dock as well as another Landing Ship Tank (LST). The modernizing of the TNI AL’s landing craft fleet with LST and larger LPDs also highlights the Navy’s continuing domestic mission. On January 2, 2010, for example, the Indonesian Marine Corps deployed 130 personnel from 1st Marine
Force’s 1 Marine Infantry Battalion in Surabaya for security duties in the Ambalat Block region. The 130 marines from X Ambalat Task Force, led by First Lieutenant Imam Syafi’i, boarded KRI Teluk Lampung-540 in Surabaya that day, to replace IX Ambalat Task Force
comprised of personnel from 3 Marine Infantry Battalion, operating on Sebatik Island (Nunukan District, East Kalimantan), near the border with Malaysia.

Meanwhile, on December 18, 2009, it was reported that Rear Adm. Marsetio was promoted to lead the TNI AL’s Western Fleet (Koarmabar) replacing Rear Adm. Soeparno. RADM Marsetio is a 1981 graduate of the Naval Academy and an Asia Pacific Strategic Studies 2007 graduate who served as Navy Combat Force Eastern Fleet Command chief-of-staff in 2004.

At the same time, the TNI AL confirmed the long-expected plans to retire six warships and finally ground its 21 Australian-built GAF N-22 Nomad surveillance aircraft, following a spate of accidents with the ageing aircraft. The Nomads would be replaced by Indonesian-built CN-235 twin-engine aircraft. The TNI AL air wing would, however, retain six Nomads as training aircraft for cadets. The TNI AL It entered an $80-million to purchase three CN-235 maritime patrol aircraft from State-owned aircraft maker PT Dirgantara Indonesia (DI) to replace the Nomads. VADM Agus said that PT DI would develop a more sophisticated surveillance aircraft for the Navy, presumably based on the CN-235 airframe, adding anti-submarine acquisition and weapons capabilities.

VADM Agus, however, said that the TNI AL had not decided whether to replace the six US-built warships, which have been in service for more than 20 years.

On December 28, 2009, The Jakarta Post published a major report, entitled “The rise of the Indonesian strategic industry”. The report noted:

A few weeks ago, Indonesia’s minister of defense officiated the launching of the new Landing Platform Dock (LPD) built by PT PAL for the Indonesian Navy. It marked a new beginning for PT PAL, the largest Indonesian shipyard located in Surabaya, East Java, after having been successful in developing various non-military ships, such as 50,000 ton cargo vessels, large oil and chemical tankers and passenger ships.

In the area of military combat ships, PT PAL has successfully developed various smaller craft such as Fast Patrol Boats in different sizes.

The development of the Landing Platform Dock has been done in conjunction with similar production in Dae Sun Shipyard, Busan, South Korea, which developed two out of four LPDs for the Indonesian Ministry of Defense through the export credit extended by the Korean financial institution.

The export finance was later on extended to PT PAL to develop the remaining two LPDs. PT PAL, under the technical assistance from Dae Sun, has succeeded in building the first ship, and in the process of building the second ship.

The development by PT PAL was done with several refinements in its design. The LPD built by the Korean could accommodate three helicopters in its deck, while the LPD built by PT PAL is able to accommodate five helicopters.

In addition, the refinement in its shaft enabled the ships to improve the speed from 15 knots to 15.4 knots.

The achievement is going to be followed by the development of Sigma-class corvettes and also Guided Missiles Ships currently on the drawing board.

Currently, the maintenance and overhaul of the Sigma-class corvettes is also being done by PT PAL.

The two types of ships are within the capacity of PT PAL to develop.

Another ambition, which is currently enabled by the success in developing the 50,000 tons of cargo ships, is in the form of the building of Helicopter Carriers. In a later stage, PT PAL is also developing submarine building capability.

The rise in the Indonesian shipyard industry is also followed by the rapid development of the Indonesian aerospace industry.

Long time in neglect, the Indonesian aerospace company PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PTDI), a metamorphosis of PT. IPTN, has shown its resilience and in fact has shown significant revival.

Recently, the Korean military signed a contract ordering four CN 235-110 MPAs, turboprop aircrafts for the military patrol. The Korean military have acquired these aircraft before, so they have experience using the aircraft.

In fact, this purchase was done after a tight tender process which involved American, Spanish and Israeli aircraft manufacturers. In addition, the Indonesian Ministry of Defense has just issued an order for three similar planes for the Indonesian Navy. These planes, as part of a planned bigger squadron, will replace the Nomad patrol aircraft
that have been planned for its retirement. PTDI also produces helicopters, including the [French-designed] Super Pumas.

The Indonesian aerospace industry, during its hibernation period, continued its contracts with EADS in developing the wings and other parts of Airbus 380 and other types of Airbus planes. Recently, the company received an award for achieving a high-level quality
requirement in supplying the components to Airbus. With such an achievement, PTDI has prepared the ground for further challenges.

Before the monetary crisis in 1998, PTDI, then named IPTN, was in the process of developing its home-grown airplanes called N250. There is a real possibility that such a plane will be revived in anticipation for the upcoming surge in short-haul flights. Further down the road the development of passenger jets are also on the drawing board.

The Brazilian aircraft industry, Embraer, has been successful in developing and marketing its ERJ (Embraer Regional Jets) to the competitive markets of the US and Europe. Such an opportunity is certainly available for the kind of aircraft developed by PTDI. Fifty-passenger aircraft are similar to the size of the famous ERJs.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian defense industry (PT PINDAD) has also succeeded in developing APCs (armored personnel carriers) for the Indonesian Army. The Indonesian Ministry of Defense placed an order for 154 Combat APCs for the Army. The APCs are similar to [are, in fact, based on] the French built Renault APCs which were procured by the Indonesian Army for the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.

It can be expected that the new capability in developing such vehicles enables the company to develop more complicated light tanks. Neighboring Malaysia has also placed an order for 40 APCs from PT PINDAD.

PT PINDAD also supplies high quality automatic rifles, pistols, grenade launchers and munitions to the Indonesian Armed Forces. The weaponry has now become the standard issue for the military and police forces in Indonesia along with the better known AK47 and M16. Recently some of its products have also been exported, including to the United
States.

The rise of the three companies has emboldened the Government to balance the sourcing of Indonesia’s defense suppliers. Having been the target of a prolonged embargo by the United States, it is believed that self-sufficiency in the defense supplies becomes a necessity in the growing complexity of geopolitics. At the same time, the development of such industries will enable them to attract the skilled human resources that nowadays are scattered across the world.

What is the way forward? These strategic industries very much depend on the orders by the foreign shipping and airline companies as well as orders from within the country. In the past, as what happened with the development of the Landing Platform Docks, these companies also depend on the external finance from the Export Finance Agencies like in
Korea.

The rise of the Indonesian banking system also enables banks to help extend finance for the purchase of such equipment as long as the Government is responsible for the repayments of the loans. This is basically what has happened now with all the Export Credits, because the Government is fully responsible to repay the debts to these Export
Finance Agencies.

With the increasing capacity of the Indonesian Government Finance, it could be expected that 10 years from now the Indonesian budget would have much greater capacity than what we have now.

Therefore, the current Government can leverage that capacity by placing orders for the military equipment that can be repaid gradually over time. In addition, the government can encourage Indonesian State Owned Companies to place orders in these industries. Pertamina, the Indonesian Oil Company, has at one time purchased a 30,000 DWT oil tanker. The ship, named the Fastron, was delivered by PT PAL in 2005.

Such strategic purchasing could be repeated again in the coming years.

The TNI AL’s growth has not been at the expense of the other services, however. On December 16, 2009, for example, newly-appointed Army Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. George Toisutta introduced three new infantry brigades on as part of the Government’s defense strategy, while the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries announced a three-pronged approach to develop the country’s maritime sector.

Lt.-Gen. George said the new (reduced-size) brigades were the 21 Komodo Infantry Brigade under the Denpasar-based Udayana military command, the 22 Ota Manasa Infantry Brigade under the First Division of the Army’s Strategic Command and the 24 Bulungan Cakti Infantry Brigade under the Balikpapan-based Tanjungpura military command in East Kalimantan.

The Udayana command covers Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, and East Nusa Tenggara provinces, while the Tanjungpura command oversees security in four provinces of Kalimantan. The First Division of the Army’s Strategic Reserve Command is based in Depok, West Java.

Each brigade consists of about 300 soldiers.

The TNI had earlier announced that it planned to establish a military command in West Kalimantan in 2010, while a study for one in Papua was expected to begin in 2010.

The TNI remains, however, extremely challenged in its budget capabilities, and the acquisition in recent years of a handful of poorly-equipped and poorly-supported Sukhoi Su-27SK and (two-seat) Su-30MKK fighters has only given it marginal modernization, rather than any real regional significance. The Indonesian defense budget, at under $3-billion, supporting some 450,000 uniformed personnel, compares unfavorably with neighboring Australia’s $13.5-billion budget, which gives extreme efficiency to less than 60,000 uniformed full-time personnel.

Indonesia’s military support capabilities, too, remain limited, given its historical difficulty in sustaining airlift, vital to the projection of ground forces even within the archipelago.

At some stage, as the TNI relinquishes its civil sector assets (as it is now doing), it will need to streamline its domestic peacekeeping — essentially its policing — functions, so that it can truly modernize. This would entail a substantial force reduction to achieve payroll and overhead changes which could then fund the basic modernization required to effectively respond to the military, national disaster, and civil defense challenges which Indonesia must expect to face from time to time. But addressing major manpower reduction is arguably one of the most significant obstacles the TNI will have to address, and it is not yet ready to do that to any great extent.

Asian jet fighter requirements continue to grow

SINGAPORE 2010: Asian fighter requirements continue to grow

By Siva Govindasamy

The Asia-Pacific fighters market will continue to be the world's most active over the next decade, with the countries likely to buy more than 500 aircraft to supplement existing fleets, embark on upgrades and acquire new capabilities to take them into the next stage of their development.

"For many Asian countries, fourth-generation planes will be useful and relevant for decades to come, and we'll see orders for a few more batches of these," says Richard Aboulafia, vice-president analysis at the Teal Group. "But for Japan and Singapore, there's a need for any technology that will help them overcome quantitative inferiority and cement a strategic relationship with the USA."

© Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin is pusing its F-35, the only fifth-generation fighter available for export

Western manufacturers such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin from the USA, France's Dassault, the Eurofighter consortium and Sweden's Saab are vying for several potentially lucrative contracts around the region. They face stiff competition from the Russian alternatives, which will take advantage of Moscow's long-standing political and military relationships. China, too, is fast emerging as a viable alternative supplier.

What, however, do the various air forces really need? While there is a lot of talk about fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, these labels are of little help in understanding the actual requirements of the various countries. It is far better, say observers, to talk about the capabilities that are available and link them to national requirements.

Lockheed, which is pushing both its latest version of the F-16 single-engined multi-role fighter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the only fifth-generation aircraft available for export, believes that having situational awareness and denying it to adversaries will be increasingly important.

"Through stealth, electro-optical sensors, a powerful and advanced AESA [active electronically scanned array] radar, electronic warfare, inherent jamming capability, and the ability to share information via secure datalinks, the F-35 combines its sensor capability like no other platform before it," says Steve O'Bryan, vice-president, F-35 business development and customer engagement

"So while those types of sensors and the situational awareness they provide will become increasingly important, they are most effective when their information is fused and presented to the pilot in a single, coherent display, as they are on the F-35. It's difficult to remove the platform from the equation, because the platform itself is integral to the capability."

Singapore first to order F-15 SG Singapore has ordered 24 Boeing F-15SG multi-role fighters, making it the first South-East Asian country to order the type and ensuring its air force retains its edge as the region's most potent strike force. Republic of Singapore Air Force pilots began training with the F-15SGs at Mountain Home AFB in Idaho, USA, last year. The air force will replace its McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks with the F-15s, but has not said when it would fly the aircraft from Singapore. It has also not released details about their configuration, apart from confirming that 29,000lb-thrust (130kN) General Electric F110-GE-129 engines will power them. A US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notification to the US Congress in 2005, when the service made an initial order for 12 F-15s, said that the weapons included 200 AIM-120C AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles with six captive air training rounds, and 200 AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles with 24 CAT and dummy rounds. For the air-to-ground role, Singapore was to get 50 GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and 30 AGM-154A-1 Joint Stand Off Weapons both with BLU-111 warheads, and 30 AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapons. It was also to be supplied with 24 Link 16 multifunctional information distribution system/low volume terminals (fighter datalink terminals) and 44 pairs of AN/AVS-9(V) night vision goggles. © Boeing Singpaore may next add the F-15 Silent Eagle The aircraft are also likely to be fitted with the Raytheon AN/APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array radar, and the Data Device high-performance 1553 databus or HyPer-1553TM tested by the Boeing Phantom Works F-15E1 Advanced Technology Demonstrator aircraft. It has been speculated that Singapore will work with Israel to modify and upgrade its F-15s. The Israeli F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) has an Elisra SPS-2110 integrated electronic warfare system, and its crews wear DASH helmet sights. A new round of procurement decisions to replace Northrop F-5s with a new tactical fighter are due to start soon, with Singapore likely to choose between the F-15 Silent Eagle - Boeing's latest variant - and the Lockheed Martin F-35. Singapore joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme in 2002 at the "security co-operation participant" level, and could ask for more information in the next year. Pentagon officials say that the island could buy up to 100 F-35s.

Rival Boeing is promoting its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15 Silent Eagle multi-role fighters actively in the Asia-Pacific region. It also believes that platforms are key.

"That said, we think there will be continued fusion and integration of on-board and off-board sensors and weapons, giving pilots the ability to detect and engage targets in any domain - in the air, at sea, or on the ground. We will also develop engine capability that is quieter and provides more range at less fuel burn," it says.

"Multirole capability is paramount for countries investing in fighters. Fighters don't just exist in one or two spectrums any more. They must be able to fulfil a variety of missions over vast geographic space. These aircraft will handle both strategic and tactical missions, including air-to-air, maritime strike, air-to-ground, and ISR missions. Long endurance and versatility will always be factors in Asia Pacific, given the vast geographic diversity - over water, over mountain ranges, and other terrain."

Lockheed, reflecting the fact that its products are primarily for allies of the USA, adds that threat perceptions matter. "Given the continued increase in capability - and numbers - of fighters being developed by China and Russia, it becomes imperative that regional governments continue to equip their air forces with the leading-edge capabilities required to counter the emerging threats to security," says O'Bryan.

Russia has been a mainstay in Asia for decades. Rosoboronexport, the country's arms export agency is promoting its Sukhoi Su-30, Su-35 and RSK MiG-35 as replacements for earlier aircraft such as the Su-27, MiG-29 and MiG-21.

"We have many close friends in Asia - India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam are just some of them," says Victor Komardin, deputy director-general of Rosoboronexport. "Yes, there is more competition from the USA and Europe. But we are confident in our ability to secure more contracts in the coming years. Russia has never stopped helping its friends, and our friends know we are here for them."

Representatives from the Eurofighter Typhoon consortium and Dassault Rafale have been active in the region as well. Neither, however, has had a sale yet. Saab, on the other hand, had its first success in Asia Pacific after signing a contract with Thailand for six Gripens. It is pushing Bangkok to buy another six and is promoting the fighter in India and Malaysia. Its sales pitch is essentially that its "ideologically neutral" fighter is cheaper than and just as capable as its competitors.

China is becoming more active. Beijing has exported fighters for several decades - most notably the Chengdu F-7 interceptor and Nanchang A-5 ground attack aircraft to the likes of Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. But it has newer-generation fighters and it is now casting its net wider.

Beijing has held talks with several countries on the Chengdu FC-1, also known as the JF-17 in the export variant that was developed with Pakistan, and the light attack variant of the Hongdu L-15 advanced jet trainer. For JF-17 customers, China could set up an assembly line or produce components for the aircraft, just like some Western suppliers. This includes traditional and non-traditional clients, say officials.

"We are talking to about five to six countries for each aircraft, and air force pilots from some of them have already flown test flights," says Ma Zhiping, president of China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation, which markets China-made military aviation products globally.

"We provide very capable aircraft at a very reasonable price compared to what else there is in the market. One of the biggest problems for many of our customers is financing. Many are developing countries and their payment abilities are limited. We work with the Chinese government in these cases to help them get cheap credit."

Exports of the Chengdu J-10 fighter are possible, but Beijing's priority is to develop an upgraded version of the aircraft. "This will take a bit of time and we are confident we will have a very good fourth-generation fighter when this is completed. Then, we could export the J-10 to our friends," says Wang Yawei, president of AVIC Defence, the military arm of state-owned aircraft manufacturer China Aviation Industry (AVIC).

The development of indigenous fighters is also under way in India, Japan and South Korea, with various degrees of success, and some could involve foreign partners. These programmes reflect a desire to acquire the technology to develop new combat aircraft and insecurity about the future availability of imports, say observers.

Boeing points out that the USA has spent billions on research to develop various fighter capabilities, and says that countries that embark on indigenous programmes could succeed if they do the same. There is an easier alternative, it adds.

© Boeing

"In each case, it would make more sense to partner with the US government and US industry that has already made this investment, and has not only developed the technology but has also integrated those disparate capabilities into an effective weapons system. Boeing would certainly be interested in this type of collaboration," says the company.

This could happen in India. The Indian air force is due to take delivery of the first batch of the long-delayed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) later in 2010 - although, going by its past record, that event could face a further postponement.

The pain that the air force went through with the LCA, however, means that foreign collaboration is a possibility for the proposed Medium Combat Aircraft, on which the country's Aeronautical Development Agency could begin work on it in the middle of this decade.

The twin-engined aircraft will incorporate stealth features, have air-to-ground and air-to-air capabilities and be able to perform suppression of enemy air defence, precision strike and close combat missions, says the ADA.

The 20t aircraft will also have a low radar cross-section, "serpentine-shaped" air intakes, internal weapons bays and advanced radomes to increase its stealth features. All of these technologies are already available in the USA, observers point out.

India is also in talks with Russia to collaborate on a fifth-generation fighter programme. This aircraft will be based on Russia's Sukhoi-led PAK-FA fighter, which is likely to have its first flight in 2010. Officials from both countries are confident that they can reach an agreement on the joint venture shortly, but there are worries within India about the level of access their researchers will get to the Russian programme.

In South Korea, the KF-X programme to develop a successor to the country's F-16s and McDonnell Douglas F-4s has stalled at the study stage. Seoul declined to finance the development stage due to the economic downturn, and there is still no clear indication of when that will go through. The focus of the study appears to have shifted.

Initially, the plan was to develop an advanced fighter similar to the Rafale or Typhoon. Last year, however, the research institute that is studying the feasibility of the programme recommended that it instead focus on developing a larger version of the F-16. That could involve Lockheed, which helped the county's Korea Aerospace Industries develop its T-50 advanced jet trainer that is based on the F-16. But the uncertainty, and potential $10 billion bill, means that this should remain in limbo.

Seoul, however, has given KAI the go-ahead to develop a prototype of a light attack version of its T-50, with a production contract likely after the air force tests the aircraft. The F/A-50 also has export potential, says KAI.

Japan has been working for years on the ATD-X programme to develop a stealth fighter that would be similar to the Gripen in size. It would be powered by a pair of IHI XF5 afterburning, thrust-vectoring engines derived from the XF7 turbofan used by Japan's Kawasaki XP-1 maritime patrol aircraft.

© Flightglobal/Tim Bicheno-Brown Indegenousfighter developments like Japan's proposed ATD-X have largely stalled

However, there has been little word on the programme since the defence ministry unveiled the first full-sized mock-up of the demonstrator at Japan Aerospace 2008. That same year, it decided against proceeding with the development stage and instead continued to fund the studies.

Some observers say that Japan would fund the development of a fighter only to satisfy the needs of its indigenous aerospace industry. Others say that this is just a ploy to get the USA to release access to the Lockheed F-22 Raptor, which Japan covets but Washington is refusing to release for export.

When it comes to indigenous programmes, Aboulafia proposes his "Rule of National Fighter Creation" to assess why countries embark on them. It can mean one of four things: they have a big budget and are not prepared to compromise on quality, they believe that it would be cheaper than the alternative imports, only local firms can meet the country's requirements, or they do not mind having an inferior aircraft.

His point is that, when indigenous programmes are closely scrutinised, none of those reasons really holds up. Almost inevitably, these plans cost too much and produce an inferior or outdated aircraft.

"India's LCA, for example, is quick becoming a multi-decade horror story, despite a large market and an abundance of talent and cash," Aboulafia points out. "National fighter concepts are almost always a very bad idea."

INDIA HEADS CLUTCH OF COMPETITIONS

There are several big fighter requirements around the Asia-Pacific region, with the countries assessing a variety of aircraft.

India has the biggest competition in the region - a $10-12 billion tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft. The Saab Gripen NG, Dassault Rafale, Boeing F/A18-E/F Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16 and RSK MiG-35 are in contention in what could be a product-saving opportunity for some.

New Delhi requires naval fighters as well, and has sent a request for information to Boeing, Dassault and Lockheed for the carrier version of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. New Delhi is also likely to order more Sukhoi Su-30MKIs, which Hindustan Aeronautics licence-produces in India.

Neighbouring Pakistan, with one eye on its rival, has begun indigenous production of the Chengdu JF-17 that Pakistan Aeronautical Complex helped to design. It also began to receive its newer batch of F-16s last year. In a few years, Islamabad is likely to ask Washington for more F-16s and attempt to buy a batch of the Chengdu J-10, China's latest fighter.

© Sipa Press/Rex Features India is likely to order more Sukhoi Su-30MKIs, which Hindustan Aeronautics licence-produces in India

Further east, Lockheed is pushing South Korea to select the F-35 for the third phase of its F-X competition, with the company saying that Seoul could get access to the aircraft from 2014 if required. Seoul is looking to buy around 60 fighters, but worries about possible delays to the F-35 and that the early variants may not be as sophisticated.

That could pave the way for Boeing and its F-15 Silent Eagle variant, which the company has proposed with countries such as South Korea in mind. The F-15K was selected for the first two phases of South Korea's F-X competition, and Boeing is pushing Seoul to consider the F-15SE.

JAPAN STUDIES

Japan is studying the F-35, the F-15SE and the F/A-18E/F, along with the Eurofighter Typhoon, for its F-X competition. Its first choice, however, is the Lockheed F-22 Raptor. Washington's reluctance to export the fighter, however, could lead Japan to the F-35 instead. If there is a delay, one of the others could be an interim solution.

The Obama administration is still studying Taiwan's long-standing request for 66 new F-16C/Ds worth $1.3 billion, and Taipei has asked to buy mid-life upgrade kits for its existing F-16A/Bs as well. It is keen on the F-35, but that is a long shot. Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation, the island's national aircraft manufacturer, proposes upgrades to half of the service's existing 130 A/B-model IDFs.

In South-East Asia, Singapore has ordered 24 Boeing F-15SGs to complement its older fleet of Lockheed F-16s. It could buy up to 60 aircraft, although the Singapore air force could begin evaluating the F-35 in the coming years. It is unlikely to proceed with an order until the F-35 has entered into service with several air forces, and proven its capabilities. When that order comes, the air force is likely to retain the region's most modern and capable combat aircraft fleet.

The Royal Malaysian Air Force bought 18 Su-30MKMs and was considering a follow-on order. However, in October, the Malaysian government decided to retire the country's fleet of MiG-29s because of their high operating costs. It plans to assess fighters from the USA, France, Sweden and the UK to replace them, and Russian arms export agency Rosoboronexport says that it is likely to offer the Sukhoi Su-30MKM for the tender.

Thailand has ordered six Saab Gripens, but it has delayed the purchase of an additional six due to the deepening economic crisis. Its neighbour Vietnam is reported to be going ahead with the purchase of a new batch of Su-30s and could order more advanced fighters from its traditional supplier Russia.

Indonesia has taken delivery of five Su-30MKs and two Su-27SKs, with another three Su-30SKMs likely to be delivered in the coming year. It also hopes to buy six Block 50/52 F-16C/Ds and upgrade six of its airworthy F-16A/Bs to the enhanced standard. This would enable Jakarta to stand-up an F-16 squadron to replace its F-5s by 2014.

Last year, Australia ordered an initial batch of 14 F-35s - the first country in the Asia Pacific region to commit to the fighter. The first F-35 is due to be delivered in 2014, and the first operational squadron to be stood up by 2018. Approval for a second batch will be considered in 2012, fulfilling Australia's commitment to form three operational squadrons and a training squadron.

Canberra also ordered 24 Boeing F/A-18E/F - becoming the first export customer for the type - but could convert around 12 of them to the E/A-18G electronic attack configuration.

source:http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/25/337453/singapore-2010-asian-fighter-requirements-continue-to.html

Pakistan and India Military Comparation

Dmitri, August 6th, 2007

Manpower and Ground Forces

India has the second largest manpower in its military globally - at 3,773,300 personnel (2005), next only to China. Pakistan has a much smaller manpower of 1,449,000 personnel which is proportionally higher than India in terms of their population ratios. Pakistan’s ground forces are equipped with American or Chinese weapons like FIM 92 Stinger SAMs, BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles, T-82 tanks and other equipments. Indian ground forces are equipped mostly by home-made or Soviet technologies like IR guided 9K35 Strela-10 SAMs, 3rd Gen IR guided Nag anti-tank missiles, UAVs and a large inventory of tanks and support vehicles. In terms of numbers and equipments, both Indian and Pakistani ground forces are on an closely equal footing.

Comparison of Air Forces

As of 2006, Indian Air Force (IAF) has over 170,000 personnel and 3,382 aircrafts of which 1,330 are combat aircraft operating off 61 airbases - making it the fourth largest air force in the world. India’s strike fighters consist of Russian and French aircraft like Mikoyan MiG-29, Dassault Mirage 2000, Sukhoi Su-30 - the last one developed under dual licensing by HAL, India’s aerospace industry in Bangalore. In addition to these, India’s air force owns ground attack aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, UAVs and support helicopters - a majority of them either of Soviet or French origin. Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has about 530 combat aircraft and over 65,000 active personnel, operating out of 9 airbases. Its strike fighters consist of US, Chinese and French fighters like F-16 Fighting Falcon, JF-17 Thunder and Dassault Mirage ROSE-III. It also has transport aircraft like Lockheed Martin C-130 and Airbus A310, however there are no UAVs or reconnaissance aircraft in the Pakistani Air Force.

Naval and Sea Based Forces

After the overwhelming losses in the 1971 war against India, Pakistan rapidly increased the size of its naval fleet which doubled in the 1980s after a massive 3.2 billion dollar military and economic aid by US President Ronald Reagan. At present, Pakistan’s navy owns over 45 vessels , most of them of US or European origin which include submarines, destroyers, frigates, patrol and mine warfare boats. It operates from its sole naval port in Karachi and naval facilities in UK, USA and France. It had recently been involved in various humanitarian operations during the 2005 Tsunami in South East Asia. Indian Navy on the other hand, is a three dimensional naval force consisting of missile-capable warships, an aircraft carrier, mine sweepers and a host of marine aircrafts; most of its warships indigenously built in its own dockyards. The navy operates from its major naval bases in Visakhapatnam, Mumbai, Goa and the Andaman Islands. Indian Navy has significant capabilities of being a true blue water Navy and is experienced both in war and peacekeeping operations in the Indian Ocean.

The Nuclear Club

India tested a nuclear bomb in 1974 using materials from Canada and technical help from Soviet Union. However the embargo in heavy water export from Canada after the test stalled India’s nuclear ambitions till 1998, when it shocked the world by conducting five nuclear detonations termed as Shakti tests. The highest yield was by a 48 kiloton staged fusion device, which India claimed was a thermonuclear bomb but seismic data on the tests proved otherwise. In the same year 1998, Pakistan conducted a series of six nuclear detonations in a test termed as Chagai. The highest yield was reported to be about 25 kiloton from a two stage boosted device. At present Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is slated to be around 30-40 warheads while India possesses 70-100 warheads. The nuclearisation of India and Pakistan became a turning point in the history of conflicts between these two countries with high tensions but no war, not very much unlike the US vs USSR Cold War.

Ballistic and Cruise Missile Proliferation

In the nuclear delivery front, both India and Pakistan have a series of ballistic and cruise missiles in addition to ground attack aircraft. The maximum range among India’s operational ballistic missiles is 2000 km achieved by Agni-2. India’s Agni ballistic missiles are indigenously developed by its own missile defence industry known as IGMDP. The maximum range among Pakistan’s missiles is by Hatf V Gauri which is reported to do over 2200 kms. Pakistan’s Hatf missiles are based on North Korean No-Dong series of IRBMs. Both Pakistan’s Hatf and India’s Agni ballistic missiles are nuclear capable. India has also developed a supersonic cruise missile BrahMos which is by far the fastest cruise missile at Mach 2.6 and maximum range of 290 km. It is reported to be nuclear capable but it is not confirmed yet. On the Pakistan side, its Babur cruise missile has a reported range of 700 km and a maximum speed of 880 km/h (Mach 0.7). As with India BrahMos, Babur is also reported to be nuclear capable but there is no confirmation yet.

The Final Verdict

Both Pakistan and India are almost evenly matched head to head in nuclear and missile fronts, however India has strategic and technological superiority over the conventional forces of Pakistan. Indian Navy is larger in fleet and personnel size with a more varied range of ships including an aircraft carrier while Pakistan’s Navy is smaller and has no aircraft carriers. Indian’s IAF is equipped with highly capable fighters like 4.5th generation Su-30s and 4th gen Mirage 2000s which are technologically superior to Pakistan PAF’s F-16s and Mirage IIIs. Additionally Indian pilots are better trained and more capable in air combat than Pakistani forces as was demonstrated by its various wars with Pakistan or joint exercises with US and UK. In the area of conventional ground forces both the Indian as well as Pakistani Army is well equipped and highly trained to survive in extremities of topography and climate in combat conditions, like wars in the high Himalayas.

If a purely conventional war were to take place between both these countries, India would most likely overpower Pakistan owing to its superior military technology and infrastructure, larger manpower, more territorial area and a strategic advantage in its sea and air forces. It must also be noted that a war between these two countries will matter more than India’s conventional superiority as both these nations are nuclear powers on an equal deadlock. India has maintained a ‘no first use’ nuclear policy on the lines of a similar policy by China while Pakistan does not have any such policy, considering their only hope against India is in nuclear deterrence. It would be risky for India at the present scenario to go into any aggressive war against Pakistan as the repercussions would be serious a nuclear devastation for both countries.

Is true that Su-27 family become game changer over south east asia and australia hemisphere ?

irborne active electronically steered-array (AESA) radars, already on board the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s Boeing-built F-15SGs and the Royal Australian Air Force’s F/A-18F Super Hornets, are about to revolutionise the regional balance of airpower and air dominance scenarios. Present-day airborne multi-mode radars like the ones on board the Su-30MKM, F/A-18D and F-16C/D have already attained the limits of technical performance that can be realised by systems with mechanically-scanning antennae. These limits can only be exceeded by an AESA radar that can simultaneously perform up to five functions comprising look-up and shoot-up; look-down and shoot-down; directional jamming of hostile data-links; real-beam ground mapping via Doppler-beam sharpening in the SAR mode; and ground moving target indication. By 2012 there will be available a range of X-band, L-band, and S-band AESA arrays that will all be able to be housed within a new-generation tandem-seat medium multi-role combat aircraft (M-MRCA), with each array being assigned specific taskings, all aimed at not only ensuring the highest degree of survivability, but also full-spectrum air dominance.

In Europe, the newly-developed ‘Caesar’ AESA radar for the Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon earlier this year successfully demonstrated the awesome potential of electronic beam-steering during three flight trials campaigns, two on a BAC 1-11 test aircraft and one on board Eurofighter DA5. In an AESA radar the mechanically-scanning antenna is replaced by a fixed-array consisting of a multiplicity of so-called transmit/receive (T/R) modules with integrated radiating antenna elements. The active array eliminates, moreover, the traditional transmitter, which in most cases comes equipped with a travelling-wave tube (TWT), as well as the high-voltage power supply. Each radiating element can be fed with signals of individual phase-setting determined by the T/R module. If this is applied to the entire array formed by several hundreds or even thousands of elements in an appropriate pattern, a radiating beam can be generated in the far-field, which scans the space. This beam can change its look direction in quasi-real time. Strictly speaking, the beam is not continuously moved any longer but ‘switched’ from one spatial position to the other in roughly 0.1% of the time needed by a mechanical system for the same manoeuvre. The AESA radar on board a M-MRCA offers capabilities that could not be reached up to now. This means, for example, that the search process is no longer dependent on a pre-determined search pattern, but can follow freely selectable sequences of beam positions, and making own-ship detectability considerably more difficult. The tactical requirement for simultaneously scanning a certain space segment in front of the aircraft and tracking the trajectories of as many identified targets as possible (track-while-scan, or TWS) can be fulfilled to much higher performance levels by an AESA radar than by a conventional one. Additionally, almost simultaneous surveillance of air and ground sectors becomes possible. Besides the primary radar operation, separate beams can provide data links to launched air combat missiles or even to other aircraft.

In April 2002 the Euroradar Consortium comprising EADS Defence Electronics (Germany), SELEX Galileo (UK and Italy) and INDRA (Spain) pooled their expertise and funding in order to demonstrate the feasibility of an electronically-steered radar system for the Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon. They started developing an AESA radar demonstrator designated ‘Caesar’ (CAPTOR AESA Radar), with the main focus on demonstrating agile beam operational benefits and full compatibility with the installation environment of the Eurofighter platform. Based on this design constraint, the ‘Caesar’ retains the main line-replaceable items (LRI) of CAPTOR: the receiver, processor and the transmitter auxiliary unit (TAU). Newly designed and built were the core element of ‘Caesar’—the AESA and the antenna control unit ACU). The ACU receives intended beam-shape and steering commands and calculates amplitude and phase settings for the T/R modules, accordingly. The sixth LRI of the system is the antenna power supply (APS), which is modified and adapted to the low-voltage requirements of the AESA. Less than four years after the Caesar’s development began, by mid February 2006 the radar was ready to be operated in an airborne environment for the first time. In the framework of the German and UK government-funded bilateral programme—CECAR (CAPTOR E-Scan Risk Reduction)—the ‘Caesar’ took off for its maiden flight on board a BAC 1-11 test aircraft from Bournemouth Airbase in the south-west of the UK. During the following flight campaign lasting five weeks and involving seven individual flights, the ‘Caesar’ spent more than 20 hours in the air without registering any failures. After completion of the flight tests, an enormous quantity of recorded data was evaluated. The analysis showed that ‘Caesar’ met all expectations. After completion of this first flight trials campaign and a series of laboratory regression tests ‘Caesar’ was prepared for its ultimate mission: the flight on board an Eurofighter EF-2000 DA5. In late 2006 systems installation began, ground trials followed and finally flight clearance was obtained from the German Military Airworthiness Authorities. On May 8, 2007 DA5 took off from Manching air base in southern Germany with the ‘Caesar’ on board. The week to follow saw three most impressive data-gathering flights revealing valuable information to the radar engineers. These flights demonstrated more-than-convincing capabilities of the ‘Caesar’. Most of the test-flights were performed against dedicated targets (like Tornado IDS and F-4E/F Phantom) carrying rangeless GPS pods to enable an off-line data evaluation. As an E-scan characteristic, specifically TWS look-back, the ‘Caesar’ demonstrated TWS operation and almost simultaneous beam excursions for data updates of already detected targets without interrupting TWS. This feature is one of the most appraised ones from the pilot’s view as it contributes to a very important task: situational awareness (SA). The evaluation of data gathered during the Caesar’s flight trials on board DA5 showed that the expectations of both—pilots and radar engineers—had been more than exceeded. The CECAR programme was completed by a third flight trials campaign, again aboard the BAC 1-11 testbed during fall 2008. The focus of activities was then on the demonstration of simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground operation, a high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode for ground-imaging and on gathering moving target indication (MTI) data. The Caesar’s success has since paved the way for introducing an AESA radar in the Eurofighter EF-2000.

Today, the Caesar, which has been co-developed since 2003 by the UK’s SELEX Sensors & Airborne Systems, Galileo Avionica of Italy, EADS Defence Electronics of Germany and INDRA of Spain, is available modular AESA comprising six line-replaceable units (LRU) and weighting around 170kg. The six LRUs include twin transmitter and receiver units, the radar computer and the antenna block. The radar computer comprises 17 individual processors and is able to perform up to 3 billion flow-point operations per second. As the radar computer’s signals data processor is programmable, it is easy to upgrade the radar by simply uploading new software. The Caesar’s software is written to MIL-STD-2167A standard and comprises 1.2 million lines of code. The antenna can be swept around by at least +/-70° in both azimuth and elevation. The AESA employs two data processing channels for target detection and tracking, and uses a third one for identification and suppression of hostile electronic countermeasures (ECM). The combination of high scanning and processing speeds with a dedicated data processing channel provides the Caesar with exceptional ECCM capabilities. For beyond visual range (BVR) aerial engagements the Caesar provides three main modes. The range-while-scan mode (RWS) is used to scan a large field-of-view for detecting hostile aircraft at the longest possible distance. The TWS mode is used to give the pilot a better picture of the airspace ahead thereby increasing his SA, while the velocity search mode (VS) is used to determine the hostile contacts’ closure speeds for target priorisation. In contrast to other radars offering similar modes, the Caesar enables the pilot to define a sector where the radar should look for targets and also determine if a detected contact should be automatically tracked or not. Normally, the Caesar will work in RWS mode to detect aircraft as early as possible. The antenna will be automatically steered to scan the defined sector and the radar will automatically choose the best suited PRF depending on the look-on direction and the targets’ aspect angles to optimise performance. If a contact is detected the pilot will be informed and the contact will be shown on the default 2-D horizontal display format in relation to its position in azimuth and range. If automatic target tracking is selected the Caesar will then track the contact by automatically switching to TWS mode. To do so the radar will generate a track file where it saves the position of the contact. With every electronic sweep the Caesar will check and update the targets position again and again. Tracked contacts are shown with their flight direction and identification. The Caesar is at least able to track up to 40 targets at once, while searching for additional targets, even under look-up/look-down conditions.

For target identification the Caesar features an integrated IFF system which will automatically try to identify every tracked contact by sending out a crypted signal towards the contact and awaiting a correct response. Targets will be shown as different symbols in different colours according to their identification status, which could be friendly, hostile or unknown. The VS mode will be normally interleaved with the TWS mode to determine the contacts’ closure speeds. In TWS mode every tracked target will be automatically priorised taking into account a target’s distance, flight direction, closure speed, altitude and identification. Every target will be marked with a letter depending on its priorisation. Despite the fact that the VS mode will be normally interleaved with the TWS or even RWS mode there is also a separate VS display mode showing contacts in relation to their closure speed rather than range. The Caesar is able to track at least up to 12 high-priority targets. Normally, the contacts posing the highest threat will be assigned by the system as high-priority targets, but the pilot can also select any target he wants as a high-priority target using the radar cursor. If the priorities change the pilot will be automatically informed. He can easily switch to the new priority target via a voice recognition system. High-priority targets will also be tracked outside of the scanning sector as long as they stay within the scanning angles of the antenna. This technique is called data adaptive scanning (DAS) and improves the tracking performance at longer distances. Thanks to its high scanning speed the Caesar is able to track while scan within the full azimuth coverage if required, in comparision to other systems which are mostly limited in that direction. For all high-priority targets the fire-control system will automatically calculate firing solutions, enabling the EF-2000 Typhoon to perform multiple target engagements. The Euroradar Consortium has now laid the foundations for further development of CAPTOR through the productionisation of Caesar. This CAPTOR-E radar will thus make its contribution to guarantee Eurofighter EF-2000’s pivotal position amongst the world’s most advanced fourth-generation combat aircraft.

Another equally advanced AESA radar originating from Europe is the RBE2 from France’s THALES. With development activities having concluded early last year and the design on track to enter French Air Force service in 2012, the RBE2 is now central to all export campaigns involving the Rafale M-MRCA, including Brazil, India and Switzerland. “We are not afraid of any weakness in terms of reliability,” says Jean-Marc Goujon, THALES Aerospace’s Head of Marketing and Product Policy. The Rafale industry team (comprising Dassault Aviation, THALES, SAGEM and SNECMA Moteurs) believes that the time is now right for the combat-proven fourth-generation M-MRCA to gain a place in the inventories of foreign air forces, and cites Greece, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as other potential future operators. “Consider the Mirage 2000: our major export contracts were a good 15 years after the first deliveries to the French Air Force,” says Gérard Christmann, Vice-President and General Manager of Electronic Combat Solutions for THALES’ aerospace activities. Noting that the service fielded operational Rafales only in 2006, he says: “It is totally normal to start the exports now. There are a lot of competitions, and we expect to win some”. Now approaching the end of its first decade in national service, the Dassault Rafale continues to receive new capabilities. The most dramatic enhancements now being made are focused on the M-MRCA’s predominantly THALES-developed mission avionics. Covering technologies such as radar, communications and self-protection, this accounts for around 30% of the value of each Rafale. Perhaps the single most important change is the availability now of the RBE2 AESA radar, scheduled to enter French Air Force use in 2012. Claimed to provide a more than 50% increase in detection range and reduced life-cycle costs when compared with earlier systems, the RBE2 uses around 1,000 gallium-arsenide T/R modules, manufactured by Europe’s United Monolithic Semiconductors. In addition to its air-to-air and terrain-following modes, the RBE2 also generates identification- and targeting-quality ground mapping using its SAR mode, and a ground moving target indication function is sure to follow next. France plans to equip its next batch of roughly 60 Rafales with the RBE2, and to retrofit existing ‘omnirole’ Rafale F3s with the RBE2, and also offer it for export. “The E-scan architecture means not just a traditional radar with an active array on the front end: it is an advanced system based on 10 years of development, testing and feedback,” says Jean-Marc Goujon, THALES Aerospace’s Head of Marketing and Product Policy. “We are the only ones with a fully mature AESA in Europe”. The RBE2’s search volume hass been increased by a factor 3 to 4 against the earlier RBE passive phased-array radar (PESA). The tracking range has been increased by 50%, while the power processing has been dramatically increased with four new processors. Power supply has an average power of 10kW. In addition, the RBE2 can generate sub-metric SAR images. The ability to jam data-links or transmit data thanks to this new radar has been closely considered but not funded for the moment. Final software validation is expected to be attained by the first quarter of 2010. The french government will garantee that a minimum of 11 RBE2 radars will be produced each year for the French Air Force alone, with production being ramped up in case export orders start pouring in.

The third AESA radar aolution to emerge from Europe is SELEX Galileo’s Vixen 1000e, for which Saab AB and SELEX Galileo have now formally signed a Heads of Agreement which outlines the way forward in terms of their future working arrangements aimed at offering the Vizen 1000e for the JAS-39 Gripen NG M-MRCA. The agreement, which was initially aimed at Brazil’s Fighter programme, signifies the beginning of a long-term collaboration between the two Saab business units—Saab Aerosystems and Saab Microwave Systems—and SELEX Galileo. According the Gripen International, the Brazil-specific Gripen NG is a considerably enhanced ‘net-centric’ version of the already proven and in-service Gripen C/D multi-role combat aircraft. Bob Mason, Selex Galileo’s Executive Vice-President for Radar and Advanced Targeting, says that the Vixen 1000e’s advantage comes from the use of a swashplate mounting, which enables the active array to be rotated by +/-100°. This beats a fixed AESA during beyond visual-range and off-boresight missile firings, and while acquiring synthetic aperture radar imagery. A scaled-down variant of the Vixen 1000e—Vixen 500—is being offered for retrofit on existing light multi-role combat aircraft like the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder. Yet another such miniaturised AESA radar being offered for retrofit is the X-band EL/M-2052 from Israel’s ELTA System. This radar’s AESA array comprises ‘bricks’ of 24 T/R modules, making it easy to assemble the AESA in different configurations to match the size and shape of an existing fighter nose, up to 1,290 modules. Smaller, lower-module-count versions can be air-cooled, reducing weight and making integration simpler. It is believed that the EL/M-2052 has been selected to go on board India’s Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

Across the Atlantic, the current market leaders in terms of confirmed orders for AESA radars for combat aircraft are Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. The former has unveiled a new AESA radar it is developing with company funds to equip the Lockheed Martin F-16 and other aircraft. The Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) is currently undergoing flight-tests and will be available by 2011. Northrop Grumman presently supplies the APG-77 AESA for the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor, APG-80 for the UAE Air Force’s F-16E/F Desert Faclons, and APG-81 AESA for the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF, while Raytheon supplies the APG-79 for the Boeing-built F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block 2 (now being delivered to Australia), and the APG-63(V)3 for the Boeing-built F-15SGs of the Republic of Singapore Air Force. Raytheon has also repackaged its APG-79 AESA as the RANGR, a next-generation radar sized to fit the F-16, Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen and Korea Aerospace Industries’ A/T-50.

Russian AESA Radars

Russia’s Phazotron JSC is offering its Zhuk-AE AESA, whose full-scale mock-up was first displayed during the MAKS aerospace exhibition at Zhukovsky in August 2005. At that time, the radar featured a 700mm-diameter antenna comprising 1,088 T/R modules (272 packs, each containing four modules); the antenna mirror was set at a 20° look-up angle. This design, however, turned out to be too heavy (450kg). In the next version the weight of individual components was reduced, cutouts were made in the radar body and a lighter magnesium alloy was introduced. Finally, the antenna diameter was reduced to 575mm and the number of T/R modules trimmed to 680 (170 packs of four modules each); the antenna itself was set in a vertical position. The overall radar weight was reduced to 220kg. The definitive design of the Zhuk-AE will eventually have a 700mm-diameter antenna with 1,100 T/R modules. Last year an initial batch of 12 Zhuk-AEs radars were built. The so-called ‘first stage’ Zhuk-AE (also designated FGA-29 with 1,064 T/R modules) that was shown in Bengaluru in February 2007 was a modernised version of the mechanically-scanned Zhuk-ME radar fitted with an AESA antenna. It retained the existing computing system with data processor, signal processor and software, as well as the clock generator. The Zhuk-AE/FGA-29 radar can be series-produced by retrofitting the present Zhuk-ME radar. Phazotron will probably offer such an option for Zhuk-ME users such as Yemen and Eritrea. The Zhuk-AE/FGA-29 is a multifunction X-band radar (3cm wavelength), which can track and engage air, ground and naval targets. The radar in its present form has a search range of 250km against combat aircraft. According to Phazotron, by selecting the proper range between radiating elements, the antenna beam can be deflected by +/-60 degrees without parasitic sidelobes. The radar can track up to 30 airborne targets and engage six of them simultaneously. The ‘second stage’ radar, designated Zhuk-AE/FGA-35, will be fitted to the production MiG-35 M-MRCA. It will receive a new computing system and new multifunction wideband generator. The FGA-35 will feature a 700mm-diameter antenna with 1,100 T/R modules. Phazotron JSC is now seeking the best method of heat dissipation—a critical issue for the success of future developments. The range of the Zhuk-AE/FGA-35 will be 200km, it will be capable of tracking up to 60 airborne targets and engaging eight of them. Phazotron JSC has designed and manufactured all radar components in-house, except for the T/R module. In 2002, the Almaz-Phazotron subsidiary in Saratov tried unsuccessfully to produce its own T/R module. Phazotron JSC subsequently engaged two companies from Tomsk: Mikran and NIIPP (Nauchno-Issledovatelskiy Institut Poluprovodnikovykh Priborov, Scientific Research Institute of Semiconductor Instruments) to produce the T/R modules. Mikran designs Russian monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMIC) and TR modules, while NIIPP undertakes production on an industrial scale. The Zhuk-AE has been designed to produce linear power output at the range of 6-8 Watt, to address available power (provided by the aircraft) and performance (range). The radar uses multiple four channel transceivers modules generating an output of 5 Watt per channel, eavh of which are installed on a liquid-cooled base-plate to dissipate the generated heat. If a specific transceiver is overheated, it will be switched off by the radar computer until it cools down. Zhuk-AE can detect aerial targets at ranges up to 250km (head on) in both look-up or look down modes.

V Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design along with Ryazan Instrument-Making Plant Federal State Unitary Enterprise, on the other hand, is busy developing its MIRES X-band AESA radar for fitment on to both the Su-35BM and the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) that will be co-developed by Russia’s United Aircraft Corp and India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). Thus far, three prototype AESAs have been built and are now undergoing laboratory tests, with the first functional unit due to enter the flight-test phase in 2010, and the series-produced radars entering service by 2015. The AESA’s front-end antenna array will also be offered for integration with the existing NO-11M ‘Bars’ PESA radars by 2014. Yet another AESA variant being designed by Tikhomirov NIIP is called the ‘smart skin’ in which the T/R modules can be located anywhere on board the aircraft to generate the relevant radiation fields required for almost 360-degree airspace surveillance coverage. Tekhnokompleks Scientific and Production Centre, Ramenskoye Instrument Building Design Bureau, the Instrument Building Scientific Research Institute in Zhukovskiy, the Ural’sk Optical and Mechanical Plant (UOMZ) in Yekaterinburg, the Polet firm in Nizhniy Novgorod, and the Central Scientific Research Radio Engineering Institute in Moscow—were all selected to develop the avionics suite for the FGFA. NPO Saturn has been determined to lead the work on the engines. V Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design’s top brass—comprising General Director Yuriy Beliy, and General Designers Anatoliy Sinani and Vladimir Zagorodniy, presented a prototype of the MIRES AESA at MAKS 2009. The GaAs RF components (transistors, diodes and MMICs have been developed and made by Moscow-based NPO ‘Istok’, while the series-production will be undertaken by in Ryazan Instrument-Making Plant Federal State Unitary Enterprise.

V Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design and Ryazan Instrument-Making Plant Federal State Unitary Enterprise also unveilled another novelty at MAKS 2009—modular L-band and S-band T/R modules that can be housed within a combat aircraft’s forward wing and wing-root sections, as well as on the vertical tail sections. These T/R modules can be employed for secondary airspace surveillance, as well as for missile approach warning and directional jamming of airborne tactical data-links associated with BVRAAMs and AEW & C platforms. Incidentally, such a distributed array of T/R modules optimised for tactical jamming was first developed by Italy’s Elletronica. With operating wavelengths of between 6 and 12 inches, L-band permits good long-range airspace search performance with modestly-sized antennae, while providing excellent weather penetration, and reasonably well-behaved ground clutter environments compared to shorter wavelength bands. In airborne radar applications, L-band offers an additional economy, as a single L-band design can combine conventional primary radar functions with secondary IFF/SSR functions, thus saving considerable antenna and T/R hardware weight, cooling and volume. The latter are alone sufficient reasons to employ this otherwise heavily congested bandwidth. Another less frequently discussed consideration is that L-band frequencies typically sit below the design operating frequencies of stealth-shaping features in many combat aircraft and UCAVs. Shaping features such as engine inlet edges, exhaust nozzles, and other details become ineffective at controlled scattering once their size is comparable to that of the impinging radar waves. This problem is exacerbated by the skin effect in resistive and magnetic materials, which at these wavelengths often results in penetration depths incompatible with thin coatings or shallow structures. Recently performed RCS modelling and simulations performed on key shaping features of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter show a pronounced degradation of shaping effects below the design’s optimal X-band operation. However, Tikhomirov NIIP’s uncharacteristic coyness about the intended uses of the L-band AESA design has not precluded other programme participants from commenting on such distributed T/R modules. NPP Pulsar, who developed the RF transistor technology used in the AESA’s T/R modules, and the quad T/R module design, has described the design as intended for IFF, international SSR and search radar functions. For a dedicated IFF/SSR role, the Tikhomirov NIIP-designed L-band AESA would simply represent ‘gross overkill’ in performance and angular coverage. The Pero PESA design developed by Tikhomirov NIIP for upgrades to legacy N001V-series multi-mode X-band monopulse radars is an interesting example, as it combines a reflective X-band array for search functions, and an embedded transmissive L-band array for IFF/SSR functions. The traditional approach to IFF/SSR integration in both US and Russian planar-array airborne radars has been to fit one or two rows of L-band dipoles on the face of the antenna.

NPP Pulsar explains that the distributed AESA arrays (X-band, L-band and S-band) are nothing less than the ‘shared multifunction aperture’ model now very popular in the design of Western X-band airborne fire-control radars, including the Raytheon APG-79 and Northrop Grumman APG-80. Many of these functions can be integrated into the design without great difficulty, in part due to the modest number of antenna elements used in an L-band design, and in part because the demands in digitising, synthesizing, and processing lower band waveforms are much less technically challenging than in the X-band or Ku-band. The Tikhomirov NIIP’s L-band AESA design is an important first step in developing the full technological potential inherent in an L-band multifunction aperture design, and once fully integrated and matured on the Su-30MK/Su-35 airframes, this design is likely to be become the vehicle for progressive incremental addition of further capabilities over time. The effectiveness of the design in any of its intended or potential roles will critically depend upon how well the AESA has been designed. Power-aperture product performance will be especially important in Counter-VLO search/track roles, and any active jamming roles. Performance modelling for a range of feasible configurations indicates that this radar will deliver tactically credible search-range performance. RF power output will not be a major technological problem longer term, given the increasing availability of Gallium Nitride commercial and military radio-frequency power transistor technology, and the size of the Su-30MK’s airframe, which permits the integration of effective liquid cooling systems without great difficulty, a major design problem with smaller smaller MRCAs. Critics who might choose to dismiss the importance of Tikhomirov NIIP’s L-band AESA should therefore carefully consider the very significant performance and growth potential of such designs even in the short 2010-2015 timeframe. NPP Pulsar has been very active in Gallium Nitride technology with numerous publications in Western research journals and conferences. In summary, Tikhomirov NIIP’s L-band AESA is an important strategic development, and one which has the potential, once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, to render narrowband stealth designs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or some UCAVs, highly vulnerable to Su-30MK variants equipped with such AESA radars. It is a classical case study of lateral technological evolution, and smart technological strategy, a game Russia’s defence industry plays exceptionally well.

The basic AESA array design and integration into the leading edge flap structure are well documented. Each array employs 12 antenna elements. Three quad T/R modules each drive four antenna elements, for a total of 12 elements per array, in three sub-arrays. The linear array is embedded in the leading edge of the wing flap, with the geometrical broadside direction normal to the leading edge. The leading edge skin of the flap covering the AESA is a dielectric radome, which is conformal with the flap leading edge shape. The array geometry produces a fan-shaped mainlobe, which is swept in azimuth by phase control of the 12 T/R modules, providing a two dimensional volume-search capability. As the array is only one element deep in height, the angular coverage it provides in elevation will be fixed, and determined by the vertical mainlobe shape of the antenna elements. The arrangement of the AESA produces a fan-shaped beam, which is swept in azimuth to cover a volume in the forward hemisphere of the aircraft. Whether the AESA can actually sweep the full volume that is geometrically available depends primarily on the mainlobe shape and boresight direction of the antenna elements, which has yet to be disclosed. As the imagery of the antenna elements conceals the internal structure under a dielectric cover, at best one can make reasonable assumptions about the design. The most likely technology employed is that of a microstrip antenna with a dielectric foam or air-gap spacer, forming a sandwiched block. This technology has been used extensively in L-band designs for telecommunications and satellite navigation, as it affords precision control of characteristics and relatively low fabrication cost, with good repeatability in production. This technology would also permit precise shaping of the mainlobe in both axes and control of element sidelobes. There is an inherent tradeoff in such a design. Elements with higher gain will impose restrictions on bandwidth, and in beamsteering angle. The latter is critical in this application, since wide beamsteering angles in azimuth dictate a wide radiation pattern in azimuth. The element mainlobe angular width must be greater than the maximum beamsteering angle, or significant loss in total array gain will occur as the AESA mainlobe is steered into the region where element gain falls off rapidly with azimuth angle. In operational terms, the AESA must be capable of sweeping the volume in front of the aircraft’s nose, either in IFF/SSR, search or jamming applications. The physical alignment of the array is with the leading edge of the wing, at 42° for the Su-30MK’s airframe. This permits two possible design strategies for the antenna elements. The first is to employ very low gain elements, with a mainlobe 3dB width in azimuth well in excess of the beam-steering angle required to cover the nose region. This angle would be of the order of 55° to 65°, beyond which grating lobe and other problems tend to be inevitable. This design approach provides the best possible angular coverage, effectively the full forward hemisphere. However, it also drives up the emitted power requirement for any given detection range performance, as the total array gain is reduced. An alternate strategy is to sacrifice total angular coverage to increase total array gain, and thus maximise power-aperture product achieved for a given T/R module power rating. If the AESA is intended to provide significant detection performance operating as a radar, this is the preferred strategy. Implementing this strategy requires some tradeoffs between total beam-steering angular coverage of the array versus the per-element gain. Both design strategies permit single-plane monopulse angle tracking within a narrow angular volume around the nose of the aircraft, where a target is within the coverage of both the left and right wing-mounted AESAs. This is an operationally acceptable arrangement as the precision angle tracking provided by monopulse operation is employed primarily for weapons targetting. This does not preclude performing single-plane monopulse angle tracking within each of the AESA arrays, using the sub-arrays, but affords higher total gain and detection range performance. Provision of a 3-D tracking capability is more difficult in the absence of any vertically displaced antenna elements in the arrays. However, if we assume that such a capability is only required for targets directly in front of the aircraft to produce a fire control solution, two options are available. The cheapest solution to the provision of a heightfinding capability is to point the aircraft’s nose at the target, and then perform an aileron roll manoeuvre while tracking the target, with resulting height resolution similar to azimuth resolution. The more expensive approach, which is suitable for continuous tracking, is to add an additional high-gain receive antenna suite, which is vertically displaced relative to the plane of the aircraft’s wing, and thus the AESA. Such an antenna could be integrated into the leading edge of one or both of the vertical tails of the Su-30MK with no difficulty. Phase alignment of the monopulse sum and difference signals produced by the wing and tail arrays could be readily achieved by inserting a delay line between the wing-array outputs and the sum/differencing network. The simplest strategy for Tikhomirov NIIP to pursue in designing a pulse Doppler radar RF and processing sub-system for the L-band AESA is to adapt an existing design, an evolutionary model frequently used by Russian designers. It most is likely that the N0-35 Irbis-E is being used for this purpose with the new X-band AESA design. Once such a radar exists, adapting it for use with an L-band AESA would involve only modest engineering effort.

NPP Pulsar, the manufacturer of the T/R modules and transistors employed in the MMIC modules, made some most interesting disclosures at MAKS 2009. For instance, the T/R module frequency band coverage is between 1.0GHz and 1.5 GHz, while the T/R module volumetric power density is 2 kiloWatts/litre. The T/R module’s nominal power rating is 200 Watts per TR channel, for a total of 2.4 kiloWatts per array, and 4.8 kiloWatts for a two-array installation. These cited performance numbers, though, need to be carefully qualified, as the manufacturer has also elaborated on the design of their Silicon RF power transistors intended for pulsed-power applications such as L-band and S-band T/R modules. Specifically, NPP Pulsar has discussed the development of transistors rated to deliver 500 Watts for 10 sec pulse durations at 1% duty cycle, 250 Watts for 100 sec at 10% duty cycle, and 150 Watts for 500 sec at 15% duty cycle. In practical terms this transistor design produces pulse energies of 0.005 Joules at 1% duty cycle, 0.025 Joules at 10% duty cycle, and 0.075 Joules at 15% duty cycle, favouring high-duty cycle and lower peak-power operating regimes. In pulsed operation at 100 Watts, a duty cycle of ~18% and pulse duration of ~700 sec appear to be the performance limits. NPP Pulsar already manufactures 1.5 kiloWatt-rated liquid-cooled T/R modules for surface-based radar applications, and solid-state IFF/SSR transmitters rated at 3 kiloWatts. A number of these designs employ ganged-transmitter stages, some with up to 64 solid-state modules. The current Tikhomirov NIIP-developed L-band AESA does not appear to use a liquid cooling loop, given the absence of plumbing, and appears to employ conduction cooling to the airframe metal structure instead. This will inevitably limit the average power rating of the equipment, in comparison with a liquid-cooled design. The exposed T/R module imagery released by NPP Pulsar in late 2008 shows eight RF power transistors driving four antenna elements, which is consistent with a pair of transistors each driving 100 Watts into one element, with a maximum sustained duty cycle of ~18% for the stated transistor performance. For comparison, the liquid-cooled solid-state L-band T/R modules developed a decade ago for Northrop Grumman’s MESA design were at the time cited at 1.0-1.5 kiloWatts per channel, whether the actual production design can deliver this peak-power rating remains to be disclosed. With the existing Tikhomirov NIIP-developed L-band AESA design using 12 T/R channels per array, and a pair of arrays, the NPP Pulsar disclosure permits some estimation of nett AESA power ratings. The lower bound on the design is 2 x 12 x 200 Watts, for a total peak rating of 4.8 kiloWatts, with a duty cycle of ~18% and maximum pulse duration under 800 sec. The design is likely operated in C-class, although some cited Russian designs use A class or quasi-complementary AB-class circuits. If we then assume that each T/R channel can produce one kiloWatt of RF power with more powerful ganged RF transistors with a total rating of 500 Watt/~20% Duty Cycle, then this yields a rating of 2 x 12 x 1 kiloWatt for a total of 24 kiloWatts for a pair of arrays. The latter will require liquid cooling at any significant duty cycle. In comparison with X-band AESAs, these are excellent numbers, but for an L-band AESA with a factor of 10 or more lower antenna gain, are not necessarily stellar. The nett gain achievable by the each array element will depend strongly on the intended tradeoff between azimuthal angular coverage versus gain, but also upon the elevation coverage intended. For typical geometries of interest in air combat between combat aircraft, an elevation coverage of +5° to -15° would permit acquisition of most targets of interest, resulting in a mainlobe width in elevation of ~20°. From an antenna design perspective, narrowing the mainlobe in elevation is a modestly challenging task. Design options include changing the aspect ratio of the microstrip radiating element, or introducing a graded dielectric lens element in front of microstrip element, the latter approach used in existing Russian electronic warfare equipment for phased-array mainlobe shaping. Several estimations of element gain can be applied. The first is the simple rule of thumb estimate of ~6 dBi per element. If we assume a more refined design, with a mainlobe of 80° in azimuth and 40° in elevation, and apply Barton’s approximation, G = 30,000/( az x el), the element gain is ~9.7 dBi. Finally, we might assume a dielectric lens or more aggressive microstrip design, or some combination thereof, with an mainlobe size in elevation of 20°, which yields, again using Barton’s approximation, an element gain of ~13 dBi. Sidelobe performance will be poor compared to X-band AESAs, due to the limitations inherent in a 12 x 1 element linear array. While an aggressive taper function could be applied, the low element count precludes very low sidelobe performance, even with concurrent element gain and phase control. Receiver noise figure performance for the L-band AESA should be excellent, due to the short feed between the T/R module and antenna element, the potential for low-loss integral directional coupler design, and typical transistor noise figures in the L-band of a small fraction of a dB. The effective noise figure is likely to be dominated by losses between the antenna and transistor, and of the order of 1dB. Overall system noise temperature will be dominated by antenna noise produced by the environment. What choices in PRF, CPI, duty cycles and pulse compression technique Tikhomirov NIIP will opt for remains to be seen.

Little has been disclosed on existing X-band designs to date, although public disclosures suggest that Barker codes may be in use for pulse compression. Open source data indicates that most operating modes in Russian pulse-Doppler designs emulate those commonly used in US and European designs, with medium and high PRF modes commonly used. At least one Russian design is known to interleave medium PRF and high PRF regimes to maximise performance against concurrent mixes of closing and receding targets. Detection range performance in coherent pulse-Doppler designs depends strongly on power-aperture product, but also on coherent integration time, PRF, and duty cycle. f the intent of the design is to maximise detection range against closing low signature targets, then the design imperative will be to maximise the emitted energy per dwell, and minimise the noise bandwidth. This usually leads to the choice of a high PRF regime velocity search (VS) or tange gated high PRF range-while-search (RWS) regime, or some interleaved combination of the two, with a maximum coherent integration time duration to maximise the coherent integration gain. While X-band radars have high PRF regimes at 100kHz to 300kHz, an L-band design will exhibit similar unambiguous Doppler at much lower PRFs, of the order of 25kHz to 75kHz, due to the four to six times lower operating frequency. In the cardinal co-altitude air-to-air engagement geometry for closing high-speed targets at medium to high altitudes, the target Doppler will be well outside mainlobe clutter (MLC) and sidelobe clutter (SLC), which simplifies analysis. As the radar scans only in azimuth, the available dwell time per angle can be greater than in a comparable X-band search radar mode, thus minimising the dB loss incurred due to beamshape and scan considerations, another simplification to the model. A key consideration in such a regime of operation is that of how many pulses can be coherently integrated. This will be limited by the coherence length/time of the master oscillator employed, a parameter the Russians have not disclosed for any recent radar designs, and the Doppler filter bandwidth, which is readily estimated. Non-coherent integration incurs up to several dB of loss in the integration of large pulse trains.

Growth options include: increasing the power rating of the existing T/R modules while retaining conduction cooling; further increasing the power rating of the T/R modules and introducing liquid cooling; improvements to antenna element design to increase element gain; extending the arrays further along the wings to add an additional one or two sub-arrays; and the addition of receiver arrays in the leading edge of the vertical tails to provide dual-plane monopulse precision angle tracking capability for fire-control purposes.

For instance, increasing the array size to 16 elements improves power-aperture product for the existing design by almost 80%, by virtue of additional gain and transmit power. The practical limit will be the available leading edge flap volume as the design progressively tapers toward the wingtips, and system constrains on liquid cooling capacity.