Sukhoi Su-30MKI

[Rajput Lion]

^^DRDO is looking for our next gen IRST to provide full weapons grade passive track without radar or LRF help. It would be ground breaking if they could achieve this.

 

[Rajput Lion]

As per USN Super Hornet pilot, IRST 21 can detect stealth fighters and even gliders over 100 miles. But it's a LWIR sensor. The IRST we're developing for MKI is going to be imaging dual band with integrated LRF and TV camera. Rafale's OSF tracked F-16 from 140kms away while fully IDed it around 70kms. MKI's sensor is going to be much bigger and powerful than Rafale. So, its detection/tracking/IDing is going to be superior to even Rafale's.

I think @Picard has a point in his previous post

 

[Domobran7]

That only applies if you are close enough. IRST is restricted by the distance it can detect heat because the cold environment acts as a heat sink.

That is wrong. Cold environments act as a heat sink yes, but they actually make it easier to detect hot objects because temperature differential is greater.

And IRST does not rely on convention to detect targets. Instead, it relies on infrared radiation from the object. This infrared radiation is not absorbed by the "cold environment" - in fact, cold environment makes it easier for it to propagate, as does the rare air environment - and you have both at altitude. Main issue with detection via infrared radiation is absorption by molecules of the air in between the target and the sensor, and colder air = less mollecular movement = less absorption. Greater impact is caused however by air density, because more stuff you put in between the source and the sensor, greater the absorption.

IRST sensor of Dassault Rafale’s OSF can, at 20.000 ft, detect a subsonic fighter-sized target at 80 km from the front and 130 km from the rear. At low altitude, range from the rear is 110 km.

So yeah, higher you go, greater the range.

Stealth jets have the habit of cooling their exhausts with ambient air that dissipates heat, and the airframe also dumps heat into fuel tanks, so that acts as a second heat sink. So it becomes very difficult to detect residual heat. And due to wind and air pressure IRST have to deal with many false positives. So unless you are close enough, an IRST cannot tell if a heat signature is an aircraft or an environmental artifact. So, while an IRST does detect a jet from a long distance, it will look like a twinkling star at such distances. And it could very well be a star, or a planet or satellites, not a jet. At shorter altitudes, you will even detect birds.

And?

These cooling techniques do help, as I have already acknowledged. But they are not a silver bullet. You cannot "dump heat" from aircraft skin into fuel tanks. The best these tanks can do is cool down the electronics, engine systems, airframe hydraulics... even if you use it to cool down the skin, it will merely reduce the heat buildup, not the friction heating of the skin itself. And of course it does absolutely nothing to cool down the air heated by compression as aircraft flies.

Wind and air pressure do not produce false positives. Ambient heat sources do. And yes, IRST can detect if heat signature is an aircraft. Jet produces very different signature from a twinkling star or a planet.

So if you need actionable intelligence, you either need a massive heat source that is without a doubt man-made, like a ballistic missile in boost phase, or a very large aircraft that has pretty much zero ways to reduce its heat signature, like the Flanker or Eagle. Or of course, get close enough to get a decent enough resolution.

"Close enough" being 50 - 100 km, more if it is at significant altitude.

An aircraft is supported by multiple types of radars with 360 deg capability, including future fighters. It's not that realistic for IRST.

It is actually more realistic for IRST, because it is smaller than a decent radar.

The idea is to detect with a radar first and then point your IRST towards actionable intelligence collected by the radar.

You can do one or the other, depending on situation. If you are using radar, for example, opponent can use RWR to detect your emissions and then point IRST and/or his own radar towards you.

 

[randomradio]

That is wrong. Cold environments act as a heat sink yes, but they actually make it easier to detect hot objects because temperature differential is greater.

And IRST does not rely on convention to detect targets. Instead, it relies on infrared radiation from the object. This infrared radiation is not absorbed by the "cold environment" - in fact, cold environment makes it easier for it to propagate, as does the rare air environment - and you have both at altitude. Main issue with detection via infrared radiation is absorption by molecules of the air in between the target and the sensor, and colder air = less mollecular movement = less absorption. Greater impact is caused however by air density, because more stuff you put in between the source and the sensor, greater the absorption.

Um, no, you missed the next sentence. The cold environment on its own does not reduce heat signature, the cold air is mixed in with the exhaust to reduce the heat signature. This bit: Stealth jets have the habit of cooling their exhausts with ambient air that dissipates heat...

IRST sensor of Dassault Rafale’s OSF can, at 20.000 ft, detect a subsonic fighter-sized target at 80 km from the front and 130 km from the rear. At low altitude, range from the rear is 110 km.


So yeah, higher you go, greater the range.

Therein lies the difference. 80-130Km versus the J-20 detecting the Flanker at 300Km, and then using that ridiculously hot engine to home in on it passively from the sides and rear.

And?

These cooling techniques do help, as I have already acknowledged. But they are not a silver bullet. You cannot "dump heat" from aircraft skin into fuel tanks. The best these tanks can do is cool down the electronics, engine systems, airframe hydraulics... even if you use it to cool down the skin, it will merely reduce the heat buildup, not the friction heating of the skin itself. And of course it does absolutely nothing to cool down the air heated by compression as aircraft flies.

Wind and air pressure do not produce false positives. Ambient heat sources do. And yes, IRST can detect if heat signature is an aircraft. Jet produces very different signature from a twinkling star or a planet.

It reduces the detection range relative to your enemy, which is the goal.

Turbulence is produced by hot air mising with cold air, thermal convection produces a heat signature.

You are just getting caught up in semantics. When pressure decreases, temperature decreases, so density decreases. And wind movement not only produces heat signature but also radar signature, because not only is there the rapid motion of air molecules, but it's also carrying materials like water, dust, sand, pollutants etc.

"Close enough" being 50 - 100 km, more if it is at significant altitude.

It's close enough for a kill, but not detection.

It's like this: If me as a J-20 pilot can detect you as a Flanker pilot from 300Km vs your 100Km and can see the Flanker with IRST from 100Km vs your 50Km, then I win. It's not a zero sum game, it's all about reducing your overall signature so you are detected and tracked later than the enemy.

It is actually more realistic for IRST, because it is smaller than a decent radar.

The opposite. It's basically not worth the investment due to the level of system design necessary to incorporate 5 or 6 such sensors. New radars (not old radars) will simply take the shape of the airframe, but IRST is this bulging sphere sticking out of the aircraft. So designers prefer simpler detectors with lesser functions compared to the IRST. The idea is they can always point the nose towards the threat post radar detection.

You can do one or the other, depending on situation. If you are using radar, for example, opponent can use RWR to detect your emissions and then point IRST and/or his own radar towards you.

If you use it right, radar can go undetected, the threat doesn't have to be alerted to the presence of radar. This works by not emitting any power beyond background noise. Upon detection of the Flanker, the J-20 can position itself in a more advantageous position, ie, away from the Flanker's primary sensors, it can keep track of the Flanker using a radar's basic TWS mode, which the Flanker's RWR will reject as clutter. As the J-20 closes in, the IRST can help finish the job.

Otoh, if the Flanker has equivalent heat treatment, then the J-20 may have to deal with the threat a lot closer to the Flanker thereby alerting its presence to the Flanker or forcing the J-20 to shoot at it from a longer distance thereby decreasing the chances of a successful kill. In any case, the Flanker still faces a significant disadvantage 'cause of the J-20's first look, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Domobran7]

Um, no, you missed the next sentence. The cold environment on its own does not reduce heat signature, the cold air is mixed in with the exhaust to reduce the heat signature. This bit: Stealth jets have the habit of cooling their exhausts with ambient air that dissipates heat...

I have not missed it; I replied to that bit separately.

Therein lies the difference. 80-130Km versus the J-20 detecting the Flanker at 300Km, and then using that ridiculously hot engine to home in on it passively from the sides and rear.

Subsonic fighter-sized target, and that data is frankly quite old. Even just software upgrades will have increased detection range significantly by now, it is just that said data is not public domain and I don't want to pull things from my *censored*.

Flankers are big, and if it is flying at any significant speed, detection range will be increased. If we assume e.g. F-22 supercruising at Mach 1,7 and 40 000 ft, OSF would detect it from distance of 270-285 km from the front and 435-465 km from the rear.

It reduces the detection range relative to your enemy, which is the goal.

Turbulence is produced by hot air mising with cold air, thermal convection produces a heat signature.

You are just getting caught up in semantics. When pressure decreases, temperature decreases, so density decreases. And wind movement not only produces heat signature but also radar signature, because not only is there the rapid motion of air molecules, but it's also carrying materials like water, dust, sand, pollutants etc.

See above. It is quite questionable how useful that range detection will be.

Also, you are just talking about random stuff here. Read again what I wrote.

It's close enough for a kill, but not detection.

It's like this: If me as a J-20 pilot can detect you as a Flanker pilot from 300Km vs your 100Km and can see the Flanker with IRST from 100Km vs your 50Km, then I win. It's not a zero sum game, it's all about reducing your overall signature so you are detected and tracked later than the enemy.

If you as J-20 pilot use radar, then I will know you are there, and where you are, from well beyond 300 km. Well maybe not considering how crap Russian electronics can be, but you get the idea. So you will have to think very well if you want to use your radar to begin with.

The opposite. It's basically not worth the investment due to the level of system design necessary to incorporate 5 or 6 such sensors. New radars (not old radars) will simply take the shape of the airframe, but IRST is this bulging sphere sticking out of the aircraft. So designers prefer simpler detectors with lesser functions compared to the IRST. The idea is they can always point the nose towards the threat post radar detection.

Yeah, no.

Modern IR MAWS are miniature, wide-FoV IRST anyway. Yes, they have crap range, but it does show you don't have to have bulging IRST. And it is not like IRST produces much drag anyway.

If you use it right, radar can go undetected, the threat doesn't have to be alerted to the presence of radar. This works by not emitting any power beyond background noise. Upon detection of the Flanker, the J-20 can position itself in a more advantageous position, ie, away from the Flanker's primary sensors, it can keep track of the Flanker using a radar's basic TWS mode, which the Flanker's RWR will reject as clutter. As the J-20 closes in, the IRST can help finish the job.

Otoh, if the Flanker has equivalent heat treatment, then the J-20 may have to deal with the threat a lot closer to the Flanker thereby alerting its presence to the Flanker or forcing the J-20 to shoot at it from a longer distance thereby decreasing the chances of a successful kill. In any case, the Flanker still faces a significant disadvantage 'cause of the J-20's first look, but that's a different discussion.

If you want to detect anything, you have to emit beyond the background noise at least to a degree. LPI radars can attempt to reduce their power to levels similar to the background noise, but that is nothing new. Things such as frequency modulation, signal strength reduction and tracking over time had been used to protect radars since 1940s. And radar warning receivers had also been designed to deal with such measures since 1940s. It is not like these techniques are new or unknown.

So yeah, you cannot just assume that your radar will not be detected simply because you are trying for it to not be detected. Even TWS mode is not likely to be rejected by clutter, at least most of the time. No matter what aircraft your radar has detected, radar signals will have been reaching it for far longer than you have had the image. Which means RWR has had the opportunity to separate your signals from noise. Whether it has managed to do so depends on how good RWR is: sensitivity of the receiver, signals database it has, detection algorithms it has, and so on.

 

[randomradio]

Flankers are big, and if it is flying at any significant speed, detection range will be increased. If we assume e.g. F-22 supercruising at Mach 1,7 and 40 000 ft, OSF would detect it from distance of 270-285 km from the front and 435-465 km from the rear.

I would like a source for that claim.

Btw, midwave cannot detect

See above. It is quite questionable how useful that range detection will be.

It's still not. 'Cause IRST still has other limitations, like a piss-poor IFOV. Never mind the issue with false alarms. It still needs radar for first detection so you can use the IFOV capabilities of the detector array to actually track the target.

If you as J-20 pilot use radar, then I will know you are there, and where you are, from well beyond 300 km. Well maybe not considering how crap Russian electronics can be, but you get the idea. So you will have to think very well if you want to use your radar to begin with.

The sensor J-20, probably. But not the shooter J-20 that's passive-only, relying on ESM, RWR and IRST cued by the sensor J-20.

Yeah, no.

Modern IR MAWS are miniature, wide-FoV IRST anyway. Yes, they have crap range, but it does show you don't have to have bulging IRST. And it is not like IRST produces much drag anyway.

Quite a lot. Or they would have done it. Otoh, they are more willing to implement 360 deg radars, like Rafale F5 is expected to get, or what the IAF wanted out of FGFA.

If you want to detect anything, you have to emit beyond the background noise at least to a degree. LPI radars can attempt to reduce their power to levels similar to the background noise, but that is nothing new. Things such as frequency modulation, signal strength reduction and tracking over time had been used to protect radars since 1940s. And radar warning receivers had also been designed to deal with such measures since 1940s. It is not like these techniques are new or unknown.

So yeah, you cannot just assume that your radar will not be detected simply because you are trying for it to not be detected. Even TWS mode is not likely to be rejected by clutter, at least most of the time. No matter what aircraft your radar has detected, radar signals will have been reaching it for far longer than you have had the image. Which means RWR has had the opportunity to separate your signals from noise. Whether it has managed to do so depends on how good RWR is: sensitivity of the receiver, signals database it has, detection algorithms it has, and so on.

It's a tug of war between sensors and software. The best case is for RWR to process every signal that it detects, but that's unrealistic, so the radar tries to fall in the unrealistic category. Whether this succeeds or not, the radar still holds the advantage 'cause it's actually tracking the target, while the target only has some clues about the radar, at best.

 

[Rajput Lion]

@Picard,

MKI doesn't use crappy Russian RWR but very capable indigenous digital RWR called 'Dhruti DR118'. It is specifically designed to intercept LPI AESA emissions. So, yes you're correct, MKI with digital RWR will know about the presence of J-20 when it emits and tries to track MKI in LPI mode.

 

[marich01]

See, eventually we will come to the conclusion that, a lot of western fighters, esp USA fighters, actually use external capability via netcentric satcom based early warning & over the horizon detect and identify, AND push/project a lot of that as the fighters own systems capability. Which is not true at all. This is why they keep the grey zone around their system spec and expand their satcom/netcentric system like crazy.

Again, this is not to downplay the capability part, but a lot of that capability is based on other independent systems which is falsely attributed to the engaging fighter jet so as to downplay the adversary jet (read Rus). Its good that USA/NATO maintain this, but suggesting the other side is way inferior is odd.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719263961764552746

So we are taking like 1 Su30mki from each squadron to create a new one?

 

[Fatalis]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719263961764552746

So we are taking like 1 Su30mki from each squadron to create a new one?

My doubt is also the same.

 

[randomradio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719263961764552746

So we are taking like 1 Su30mki from each squadron to create a new one?

I believe they are raising a new MKI squadron, the 13th one.

270/13 = 20.77, so 20 jets per squadron, sort of. So 260 jets in 13 squadrons and some leftover after all those crashes, with 12 more left to join later on. Enough to form a 14th squadron via transfers from other squadrons, if they choose to. The rest for R&D and TACDE.

The 13th one is called No. 4 Squadrons, Oorials. Based in Rajasthan's Uttarlai.

 

[Fatalis]

Sukhoi Su-30MKI = 261 + 12 more on order

I. Squadron no. 2 Winged Arrows – based at Tezpur Air Force Station
II. Squadron no. 8 Eight Pursoots – based at Bareilly Air Force Station
III. Squadron no. 15 Flying Lancers – based at Sirsa Air Force Station
IV. Squadron no. 20 Lightnings – based at Lohegaon Air Force Station
V. Squadron no. 24 Hawks – based at Bareilly Air Force Station
VI. Squadron no. 30 Rhinos – based at Lohegaon Air Force Station
VII. Squadron no. 31 Lions – based at Jodhpur Air Force Station
VIII. Squadron no. 102 Trisonics -based at Chabua Air Force Station
IX. Squadron no. 106 Lynxes – based at Tezpur Air Force Station
X. Squadron no. 220 Desert Tigers – based at Halwara Air Force Station
XI. Squadron no. 221 Valiants – based at Halwara Air Force Station
XII. Squadron no. 222 Tigersharks – based at Thanjavur Air Force Station
XIII. Squadron no. 4 Oorials - based at Uttarlai Air Force Station.

 

[randomradio]

Sukhoi Su-30MKI = 261 + 12 more on order

I. Squadron no. 2 Winged Arrows – based at Tezpur Air Force Station
II. Squadron no. 8 Eight Pursoots – based at Bareilly Air Force Station
III. Squadron no. 15 Flying Lancers – based at Sirsa Air Force Station
IV. Squadron no. 20 Lightnings – based at Lohegaon Air Force Station
V. Squadron no. 24 Hawks – based at Bareilly Air Force Station
VI. Squadron no. 30 Rhinos – based at Lohegaon Air Force Station
VII. Squadron no. 31 Lions – based at Jodhpur Air Force Station
VIII. Squadron no. 102 Trisonics -based at Chabua Air Force Station
IX. Squadron no. 106 Lynxes – based at Tezpur Air Force Station
X. Squadron no. 220 Desert Tigers – based at Halwara Air Force Station
XI. Squadron no. 221 Valiants – based at Halwara Air Force Station
XII. Squadron no. 222 Tigersharks – based at Thanjavur Air Force Station
XIII. Squadron no. 4 Oorials - based at Uttarlai Air Force Station.

The wiki page for a lot of Indian stuff is always updated.

Sukhoi Su-30MKI - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Domobran7]

I would like a source for that claim.

These are my calculations based on PIRATE IRST performance against subsonic targets and general IRST detection range improvement with target speed and temperature.

It's still not. 'Cause IRST still has other limitations, like a piss-poor IFOV. Never mind the issue with false alarms. It still needs radar for first detection so you can use the IFOV capabilities of the detector array to actually track the target.

Or you can use IRST for first detection and radar to provide range. Granted, it will be shorter range than radar.

The sensor J-20, probably. But not the shooter J-20 that's passive-only, relying on ESM, RWR and IRST cued by the sensor J-20.

Agreed. Though that still depends on commlinks being available and not degraded sufficiently to prevent targeting data being transferred.

It's a tug of war between sensors and software. The best case is for RWR to process every signal that it detects, but that's unrealistic, so the radar tries to fall in the unrealistic category. Whether this succeeds or not, the radar still holds the advantage 'cause it's actually tracking the target, while the target only has some clues about the radar, at best.

On the flip side however radar also has to deal with interference and noise. And if you are using radar for initial detection, then target will have a time window in which radar signals will be reaching it while radar itself is not able to pick them up. So the issue is actually recognition, and that improves over time.

 

[randomradio]

These are my calculations based on PIRATE IRST performance against subsonic targets and general IRST detection range improvement with target speed and temperature.

Okay. But those numbers for supercruise are quite impossible since the only additional heat generated is via airframe friction, supercruise is achieved without afterburner after all. You still need long waves to detect a supercruising F-22. The numbers you have stated are more what you get for Flankers with afterburner using midwaves, hence my point.

The Chinese have claimed to detect an untreated airliner from 285Km, which is the highest ever claimed, but it's been doubted. Also, we don't know the size of the detector, it could be something much larger on the ground too.

Or you can use IRST for first detection and radar to provide range. Granted, it will be shorter range than radar.

It's not possible though. Even if it's possible, it would apply against another stealth jet, or when radar has been compromised. It obviously won't come to play against a Flanker.

Agreed. Though that still depends on commlinks being available and not degraded sufficiently to prevent targeting data being transferred.

It's extremely difficult to degrade comlink due to the fact that they work in burst mode and modern links are directional. Finding yourself positioned between a sensor and shooter J-20 is quite improbable. The same with a missile.

On the flip side however radar also has to deal with interference and noise. And if you are using radar for initial detection, then target will have a time window in which radar signals will be reaching it while radar itself is not able to pick them up. So the issue is actually recognition, and that improves over time.

Sure, but it doesn't in any way benefit the IRST. And radars have been around for much longer and have seen higher levels of investment and development compared to all other sensors.

The reason why radar remains the king of all sensors is due to the fact that it relies on its own energy. So it is also best suited to detect its own signal compared to an EW suite. All other sensors require the enemy making mistakes, and a lot of luck.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Radar is still the primary sensor, but IRST tech is catching up fast with QWIP and future QDIP.

The IRST which DRDO/BEL is developing for MKI/MK2/AMCA will have full AI enabled software, which may allow it to passively track a VLO target without using radar or laser rangefinder. If DRDO achieves this, it would be literally game-changing.

 

[Domobran7]

Okay. But those numbers for supercruise are quite impossible since the only additional heat generated is via airframe friction, supercruise is achieved without afterburner after all. You still need long waves to detect a supercruising F-22. The numbers you have stated are more what you get for Flankers with afterburner using midwaves, hence my point.

The Chinese have claimed to detect an untreated airliner from 285Km, which is the highest ever claimed, but it's been doubted. Also, we don't know the size of the detector, it could be something much larger on the ground too.

No, detection distance with afterburner would be even greater. Also, you are wrong about the heat:
1) additional heat when supercruising is generated by a) airframe friction, b) air compression and shock waves, c) increased engine emissions.
2) longwave IR radiation propagates better than midwave when at high altitude

It's not possible though. Even if it's possible, it would apply against another stealth jet, or when radar has been compromised. It obviously won't come to play against a Flanker.

It may come into play even against a Flanker, depending on the electronic environment (jamming, decoys and so on).

It's extremely difficult to degrade comlink due to the fact that they work in burst mode and modern links are directional. Finding yourself positioned between a sensor and shooter J-20 is quite improbable. The same with a missile.

Missile however can be detected by MAWS and have its comlink jammed then. AESA jammers work directly against the emitter or else receiver, so comlinks being directional won't help.

Sure, but it doesn't in any way benefit the IRST. And radars have been around for much longer and have seen higher levels of investment and development compared to all other sensors.

The reason why radar remains the king of all sensors is due to the fact that it relies on its own energy. So it is also best suited to detect its own signal compared to an EW suite. All other sensors require the enemy making mistakes, and a lot of luck.

Not necessarily.

If you emit, the enemy can ALWAYS detect your emissions as well. Radar warning receivers had been in use since World War 2, and Japanese even won several night battles because of them. It is just that until recently, radar was the only practical option for BVR detection of a passive target.

But just because radar has been a king of all sensors for the last 70 years doesn't mean it will stay that way... or even that it is still the case.

 

[randomradio]

No, detection distance with afterburner would be even greater. Also, you are wrong about the heat:
1) additional heat when supercruising is generated by a) airframe friction, b) air compression and shock waves, c) increased engine emissions.
2) longwave IR radiation propagates better than midwave when at high altitude

Okay, we'll see when the actual ranges come out. Until then, the basic physics behind IRST limits its capabilities.

2. Sure. But the point I'm making is midwave gives you the range, not long wave. Long wave detects smaller differences, but won't give you range. If you want to detect afterburer heat, you need midwave.

It may come into play even against a Flanker, depending on the electronic environment (jamming, decoys and so on).

No, that time is gone. Even stealth cannot easily hide from radar. It's now impossible to jam radar to the point a large RCS fighter can hide solely with EW alone. That's also why new stealth helicopters and transports are coming into the picture. Even nap of the earth flying has become difficult for helicopters and transports.

Missile however can be detected by MAWS and have its comlink jammed then. AESA jammers work directly against the emitter or else receiver, so comlinks being directional won't help.

It's not easy to jam comlink, as mentioned, they operate in burst mode, and are directional.

Imagine the shooter launching from a completely different angle to the sensor. The only way you can jam the link is if you are able to intercept it, but then you are somewhere else entirely where you have no clue until the launch happens.

Not necessarily.

If you emit, the enemy can ALWAYS detect your emissions as well. Radar warning receivers had been in use since World War 2, and Japanese even won several night battles because of them. It is just that until recently, radar was the only practical option for BVR detection of a passive target.

But just because radar has been a king of all sensors for the last 70 years doesn't mean it will stay that way... or even that it is still the case.

It's not easy to detect signals hidden in background noise. Most of it is rejected by the RWR itself. WW2 was a different era, there was no ECCM back then.

In any case, RWR is always at a disadvantage in this game. The same with any passive means of detection. AESA's changed the whole thing.

Radar will always remain king. Its reach is endless, across a massive chunk of the radio spectrum, from microwaves to mmW to terahertz. The problem with IR is very little of the spectrum can actually be used, most of it is absorbed by the atomsphere. And once quantum stealth is achieved over the coming decade, visible, IR and UV detection will be dead, with the exception of engine and rocket exhaust.

 

[Domobran7]

Okay, we'll see when the actual ranges come out. Until then, the basic physics behind IRST limits its capabilities.

At low altitude, yes. But those same physics dictate that at high altitude IRST may well have longer detection range than radar.

2. Sure. But the point I'm making is midwave gives you the range, not long wave. Long wave detects smaller differences, but won't give you range. If you want to detect afterburer heat, you need midwave.

Midwave gives longer range at lower altitudes due to the fact that longwave radiation is more susceptible to absorption by water vapor. Midwave detectors meanwhile are basically all-weather.

At high altitude however there is little water vapor, meaning that longwave can easily give you just as good if not better range.

No, that time is gone. Even stealth cannot easily hide from radar. It's now impossible to jam radar to the point a large RCS fighter can hide solely with EW alone. That's also why new stealth helicopters and transports are coming into the picture. Even nap of the earth flying has become difficult for helicopters and transports.

Uh, no. Point of EW was never hiding - though it is possible to reduce RCS through EW. Point of EW is breaking the kill chain by preventing being hit. Doesn't really matter whether you screw with the targeting radar, missile's targeting radar, or even the missile's fuse.

It's not easy to jam comlink, as mentioned, they operate in burst mode, and are directional.

Imagine the shooter launching from a completely different angle to the sensor. The only way you can jam the link is if you are able to intercept it, but then you are somewhere else entirely where you have no clue until the launch happens.

Yes, comlink jamming is not easy. But you don't need to be in-between the aircraft to jam comlink. AESA radar or AESA jammers for example use their own emissions to jam enemy radar straight at the receiver - and this way of jamming would work against the comlink as well.

It's not easy to detect signals hidden in background noise. Most of it is rejected by the RWR itself. WW2 was a different era, there was no ECCM back then.

Yeah, bullshit. As a matter of fact, development of ECCM started even before the outbreak of the World War 2, and Britain incorporated many techniques into its Chain Home radar chain. Some of the ECCM techniques included using radio signal receivers to monitor and record German jamming frequencies. First radar LPI techniques such as frequency jumping were developed during World War II in order to counter early ECM such as jamming and chaff.

These techniques were taught by British to the US, and US further developed them, opening two centres whose entire purpose was study of ECM and ECCM: Evans Signal Laboratory at Belmar (March 1942) and Radio Research Laboratory at Harvard University.

As for modern ECCM, yes, detecting signals hidden in the background noise is not easy. But it is not impossible either - and in fact radar itself faces a similar issue because it has to separate its own signals from the background noise.

In any case, RWR is always at a disadvantage in this game. The same with any passive means of detection. AESA's changed the whole thing.

Yeah, no. Most of the LPI properties of AESA are merely improvements on techniques that had existed since 1940s.

Radar will always remain king. Its reach is endless, across a massive chunk of the radio spectrum, from microwaves to mmW to terahertz. The problem with IR is very little of the spectrum can actually be used, most of it is absorbed by the atomsphere. And once quantum stealth is achieved over the coming decade, visible, IR and UV detection will be dead, with the exception of engine and rocket exhaust.

Yeah, no.

IR detection will NEVER be dead. If you move, especially if you move at speed, you generate heat. Any machinery at all also generates heat - and you need to get rid of that heat if you don't want to cook yourself. The only way for IR detection to be rendered useless is if you develop the ability to phase through matter, but that would negate any detection at all, radar included.

 

[randomradio]

At low altitude, yes. But those same physics dictate that at high altitude IRST may well have longer detection range than radar.

I'm referring to FoV and IFoV. To get greater resolution, you have to sacrifice FoV, which is why it's a secondary system.

Midwave gives longer range at lower altitudes due to the fact that longwave radiation is more susceptible to absorption by water vapor. Midwave detectors meanwhile are basically all-weather.

At high altitude however there is little water vapor, meaning that longwave can easily give you just as good if not better range.

That's different, totally irrelevant. I'm talking about midwave detecting things at higher temperature, long wave doesn't. The detectors of both are tuned to specific wavelengths.

Uh, no. Point of EW was never hiding - though it is possible to reduce RCS through EW. Point of EW is breaking the kill chain by preventing being hit. Doesn't really matter whether you screw with the targeting radar, missile's targeting radar, or even the missile's fuse.

Exactly, so the Flanker will always be detected first. I mean, that's the point. You can break the kill chain later, but the more late it gets, the more defensive you are. Like, great, a seeker can't get to you, but you are still gonna be prancing about in the sky just to avoid it when the enemy is busy doing his work. If the enemy can't kill you, but still manages to deploy weapons against ground targets, then he wins. Great, you survived, but what you're supposed to be protecting is dead.

Yes, comlink jamming is not easy. But you don't need to be in-between the aircraft to jam comlink. AESA radar or AESA jammers for example use their own emissions to jam enemy radar straight at the receiver - and this way of jamming would work against the comlink as well.

No. The idea behind directional link is you have no idea there's a comlink working out there. So there's nothing for you to jam. You wanna brute force a jammer, then that's useless, all you will earn is a missile up your tailpipe. Jamming today has to be specific, and unfortunately, reactionary.

Only radar can be pro-active.

Yeah, bullshit. As a matter of fact, development of ECCM started even before the outbreak of the World War 2, and Britain incorporated many techniques into its Chain Home radar chain. Some of the ECCM techniques included using radio signal receivers to monitor and record German jamming frequencies. First radar LPI techniques such as frequency jumping were developed during World War II in order to counter early ECM such as jamming and chaff.

These techniques were taught by British to the US, and US further developed them, opening two centres whose entire purpose was study of ECM and ECCM: Evans Signal Laboratory at Belmar (March 1942) and Radio Research Laboratory at Harvard University.

As for modern ECCM, yes, detecting signals hidden in the background noise is not easy. But it is not impossible either -

Okay, then, I stand corrected. But I was referring to the advanced concepts used today. During WW2, all they did was change some frequencies or increase transmitted power.

and in fact radar itself faces a similar issue because it has to separate its own signals from the background noise.

That's not a real problem today.

Yeah, no. Most of the LPI properties of AESA are merely improvements on techniques that had existed since 1940s.

No, they are not. Many techniques used today are in fact specific to AESA. And you get even more with digital AESAs.

Yeah, no.

IR detection will NEVER be dead. If you move, especially if you move at speed, you generate heat. Any machinery at all also generates heat - and you need to get rid of that heat if you don't want to cook yourself. The only way for IR detection to be rendered useless is if you develop the ability to phase through matter, but that would negate any detection at all, radar included.

Metamaterials will significantly reduce heat generation via absorption of heat. Yes, you will emit heat, but it will be sporadic and lower than ambient heat sources, at least ideally.

For example, there's a pretty good chance you won't see the B-21 with IR sensors at all. NGAD could follow suit, depending on how the engine is treated. At the very least, midwave detectors will become entirely useless against such jets in the future. You will still need it to detect missiles though.

The issue with IR and passive means has always been the fact that you require the enemy to mess up, so you can make use of their mistakes. Otoh, radar's objective is to defeat the enemy's strength with even more strength, because the entire functioning of the radar is in your hands. We are quickly reaching the point where IR systems are becoming useless against ground troops, and this may have started to enter air forces already too, especially starting with stealth bombers and UAVs.