Iran Air-Force Analysis The Su-35 could revive Iran's Air Force

Manomed The Second

Committed member
Messages
296
Reactions
1 516
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I still believe they are formidable even if they lack the tech to fight against the F35.

Its down to the pilot.

F4s have no chance they are relics. F16s and F15s will no doubt destroy a Su35 but a F4 no way.
Japanese F4s use Amraams and they had much much better avionics Im not talking about the stock F4 here.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,633
Reactions
5 18,323
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Japanese F4s use Amraams and they had much much better avionics Im not talking about the stock F4 here.

Damn i never knew this all I know is that Turkiye modernised its F4s with the Terminator some said the Terminator makes the F4 a whole new plane compared to the old one.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Su35 is a formidable plane but against a F35 no chance unless both engage in a dog fight.

But the F35 can even shoot it down before that happens.
its still a beautiful bird though.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,633
Reactions
5 18,323
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
its still a beautiful bird though.

Russian planes are beauties.

I appreciate them all really. Seeing the F35 in person at the airshow was a great experience if only we had Russian jets there, too bad it wont happen due to politics.
 

AmirIGM 

Active member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
30
Reactions
4 118
Website
irangeomil.blogspot.com
Nation of origin
Iran
This is already well noted.

Irbis-E
Electronically_Scanned_Array_IRBIS_E.jpg


Here's a close up of RBE2 AA . Look at those crab like antenna that's clear TSA...
rbe-2-aesa-2-jpg.16398


Here's a TSA/ Vivaldi antenna close up
image




It is....to do LPI, radars uses agile frequency hopping + Ultra wide bandwidth and some more...

LPI measures include:

  • Power management and high duty cycle, meaning the transmitter is on most of the time (long integration times)
  • Wide bandwidth (or Ultra-wideband)
  • Frequency Agility, and frequency selection
  • Advanced/irregular scan patterns
  • Coded pulses (coherent detection)
  • High processing gain
  • Low sidelobe antennas

The bolded part have anything to do with the antenna type manufacturers chose.

Advantages of Vivaldi / TSA antennas are their broadband characteristics (suitable for ultra-wideband signals
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vivaldi_antenna



In fighter jet yes, because its just so damn good, they jumped straight ahead to AESA. But the U.S does have experience with PESA onboard combat jets.

apq164-radar-b1b-lancer-1.jpg


There's a lot of explanation why air force jumped straight away to AESA, but mainly due to longer range, higher accuracy, lower intercept probability, better ECCM, lower noise etc.



Not quite, the difference between AESA to PESA is more extreme when it comes to MSA and PESA. As I've noted earlier, the PESA IRBIS-E (3m) is no more advanced in SAR resolution than MSA APG-70(2.5m) from the 80s. And again SAR resolution is directly proportional to a radar’s bandwidth, which greatly determines the radar’s jamming resistance (ECCMs).

It does have a little faster scanning rate yes true, but everywhere else is is deficient.




It is quite powerful yes. NIIP (the manufacturer of IRBIS) claimed 350 km detection range against 3 m^2 target,.

main-qimg-1cfb148bdd88dc9212ff3663d0e67b4a-pjlq


But it is on a very narrow deg x deg cued search

V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km.


its hard to imagine an increase in situational awareness with narrow field of view cued search. Especially when you have no AWACS. If the Su-35 would do volume search the range dropped dramatically. Oh one more thing, turn on your radar, you emit radar signal, your EMCON will be severely compromised especially with the antenna characteristics used by the IRBIS-E. Modern ESM are already so good and so accurate, passive detection could be a primary means to detect opposition, especially because they "sniff" at longer range than active sensors.

And that is just the radar deficiency on the Su-35 relative to near competitor in the middle east. We have yet to talk about its OLS-35, its Khibiniy ECM, its weapons carriage compared to similar analogues already fielded by the neighboring countries.

Its hard to imagine the Su-35 coming out on top if their assigned mission is air superiority attempt like you mentioned...




Again as impressive as ground based IADS is, it is in no way able to give airmen the same "god eye view" that AWACS give to pilots. Especially in contested airspace. You yourself mentioned how mountainous terrain handicapped radar view. In short it helps yes, but its not going to be level, and depending on the size and sophistication of enemies, it will just be time that determines how long the IADS and its radars will survive.

There's already a lot of real life example where ground based IADS and sensors getting wiped out by superior air force with AWACS.

We're not really getting an effective conversation here as I think you're missing a few of my points.

In general terms I'll just say that I deliberately avoided head-to-head comparisons such as we are slipping into here for a reason. That being head-to-head situations seldom happen. IRIAF fighters and their adversaries will not meet in a vacuum/video game situation. Each side has their own mission, strengths, weaknesses, that make it too complex a scenario to just compare specific subsystems. I partially alluded to this when I mentioned Israeli F-35s in my blog post.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom