Iranian Air Force (IRIAF/IRGC-ASF) | News and Discussions

[Hack-Hook]

I wrote a comprehensive article about Su-35 myself already. Not addressing that articles claims (not worth it) but looking at the platform and its systems as a whole.

The Su-35 could revive Iran's Air Force

The Su-35SE's projected purchase aims to revive an air force that is a shadow of its former glory

irangeomil.blogspot.com

Irbis-E can detect a 3m2 RCS target (roughly equivalent to an F-16, with the F-15 regularly being quoted at 10-25m2) in a narrow-FOV cued search out to a claimed 400km. In a more conventional volume search this drops to 200km.

that search is 10 degree by 10 degree and no its not enough as its in situation there is no electronic warfare and for record rafael has 0.5m rcs and f18 has an rcs of 1m and f16c rcs is reduced to 1.2m

Supporting the Irbis-E is the OLS-35 IRST, which can detect non-afterburning fighters in a head-on aspect from up to 50km away. This fully passive system (giving no RWR indication) can be used to launch infrared BVR missiles such as the R-27T/ET, and can be of particular use against stealth aircraft or in a highly jammed environment

again usual Russian practice , 50km and people say oh its fantastic , they published that against an after burning fighter not one without afterburner on so no you cant detect any stealth fighter with it and you failed one important aspect of OLS-35 , its not an imaging sensor , it only can distinguish 4 point and a flare blind it . meaning if there is a combination of 5 fighter coming head on (let say they are using after burner) you won't be aware of existence of the fifth fighter for comparison EuroFirst PIRATE on Eurofighter use imaging sensor and can distinguish 500 point , thats why i say the sensor on our infrared missiles is more advanced than OLS-35, the system is the most out dated part in Su-35

Rounding out the Su-35SE's situational awareness toolkit is the S-108 datalink, which is encrypted and reported to operate in a similar manner to Link-16. Chinese journalists say the PLAAF has made it compatible with their indigenous AWACS aircraft, which is promising for the potential of integrating it with Iran's IADS.

sadly that's the problem also , its propriety and only work with su-35 , our air defense or other aircraft are not compatible with it and only God knew if its possible to make it compatible with our other device and at least I could not find evidence that we ask Russian to change it in a manner to be compatible with our systems

What we do know is that the Su-35 does not have a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD), only the monocle-type NSC-T-04/NSTs-T-04 Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) designed for acquiring an R-73/74 lock at short ranges. This is adequate for a dogfight - and was revolutionary when the technology was first introduced in the 1980s-90s - but falls short of providing a full HMD which can effectively act as a HUD, showing speed and altitude, a pitch ladder

Not much is known about the Su-35's EW suite. Not being an AESA, the radar itself can't act as a jammer.

you said it yourself

In WVR combat the Su-35's main weapon is the R-74M (RVV-MD) infrared-guided missile, supplemented by the GSh-30-1 30mm cannon. Though the RVV-MD is a fine dogfight missile with 60-75 degree off-boresight capability and 40km range, it uses an (improved) IR rather than IIR seeker, making it more susceptible to countermeasures compared to its latest competitors. It also lacks LOAL capabilities being added to the latest western dogfight missiles such as the AIM-132 ASRAAM and AIM-9X Blk II. The K-74M2 will have LOAL, but whether it has a IIR seeker is unknown and subject to disagreement between western sources.

for god sake even the missile only have 60-75 degree sight and dont come with IIR.

Consequently, Su-35s will likely be collocated with IRIAF F-14s in TAB-8 Khatami (Esfahan), with the possibility of deployments in TAB-1 Mehrabad (Tehran) and TAB-3 Shahid Nojeh (Hamadan).

well thank God like some people here you didn't suggest to put them in Oqab air base

Examples of Su-35 technologies completely new to the IRIAF:

• Phased Array Radars
• Modern IRST
• Medium-range ARH missiles
• Helmet Mounted Sight
• Thrust Vectoring
• Tactical Datalink
• MAWS
• ...and numerous improved avionics and aviation subsystems e.g. modern RWR, ECM/ECCM

we need to talk about the red part

and you claim there is no need to answer the question in that article , why ? because they are the shortcoming of the avionics

 

[GoMig-21]

I think the purpose of the L-band arrays in the Su-35 wing leading edge is not well defined/agreed upon. I've heard some argue that it could be for IFF purposes though I know the Irbis also has its own IFF capabilities. So I'm not sure.

I've heard that argument also and have been privy to several extended debates and read several articles regarding whether those wing edge arrays on the Su-35S (AND on the Su-57 mind you) are only for IFF, or IFF/ESM/ECM a combination of two or of the three. It's listed from Sukhoi as an "L-band phased array radar."

But before getting into the technical shhttufff, let's think about it for a second in super layman ways. IFF antennas -- and basically the entire unit -- are relatively small, right? Think of the 'bird shredders' o F-16s & F-18s. Those are the antennas wired to boxes and circuits feeding the information to the MFDs. The antennas are roughly the size or RWR and MAWS and don't require an array that is rather large and fitted on the leading wing edges, specifically on the leading-edge flaps of both, the Su-35S and the Su-57.



And what we see in that production Su-35S is the section in the fixed wing that is only a part of the total unit (most likely conduits for the modules channeling emitting & receiving signals/waves) while the actual antennas & modules are installed in the flaps themselves which are missing in the above photo. So it's the flaps plus what you see in the pic above. I know you already know all this stuff; I'm only prefacing it all to make my case and for others reading if they're interested, just FYI.

This is the combination of the two.

Now just from a simple, non-technical POV, does something this size and this involved in shape & design & location all be simply for IFF? And why would you need two of them on both wings? So these are the simpleton observations and wanted to get out of the way first.

Sukhoi and I believe & Tikhomirov also lists them as L-band AESA arrays and I think the general consensus on L-band waves is that they're mainly to counter not only the more commonly used X-band, but also because they have a tendency not to scatter off low observable shaping, i.e. stealth-designed aircraft. Why would they be listed as L-band arrays if they're only IFF and even EW sensors? Doesn't make sense.

L-band waves are also used by GPS carriers but we know these same arrays are being used in the Su-57 but it's using GLONASS for its GPS instrumentation, so that's out. Although on the Su-57 technical breakdown in western medium, it lists the arrays as IFF & ECM units.

From Anton Valigin
22.11.2021 09:40 RUSSIAN WEAPONS

Russia's Su-35 fighter is equipped with not one, but three active phased array radars. The antennas of two additional centimeter-band radars are located in the leading edges of the wings and are designed to search for stealthy targets.

An image of little-known devices appeared in the poster of the Ryazan Instrument Plant, which produces them. Officially, the devices are called "multifunctional digital interrogators with an active phased array antenna." According to the old Russian tradition, the versatility of the device stretched so far that as a result, it turned out to be another "combine with vertical take-off".

Long-wave radars are most effective for finding stealthy targets, as stealth technology is designed to scatter X-band radar radiation. That is why during Operation Desert Storm, the first strikes were carried out on Iraqi air defense radars, operating on centimeter waves, the most dangerous for American F-117 stealth aircraft.

There are some sources that describe the units as the Type 4283 IFF Transponder/Interrogator. To me, it makes a lot of sense that they would be a combination of the two, multifunctional digital interrogators with an active phased array antenna. I don't buy the ECM argument since the Su-35S has its own separate EW suite with the Khibiny pods. It makes no sense at all to have those plus the arrays.

Now the only one who's delved deep into the technical aspects of the arrays AND the IRBIS-E with the combination of three working together in unison is Dr Carlo Krop. His stuff goes way back and although his motivations were strictly anti-F-35 and he wanted Australia to have nothing to do with it and preferred the Su-35, he wrote up that huge technical analysis on the AESA arrays as well as the IRBIS-E but no point in linking that since you already knew about it based on that awesome article you wrote.

Even if we assume they're not AESA arrays and are strictly IFF & EW sensors, that still doesn't take away from the brutal power and capability of the IRBIS-E radar.

 

[AmirIGM]

I've heard that argument also and have been privy to several extended debates and read several articles regarding whether those wing edge arrays on the Su-35S (AND on the Su-57 mind you) are only for IFF, or IFF/ESM/ECM a combination of two or of the three. It's listed from Sukhoi as an "L-band phased array radar."

But before getting into the technical shhttufff, let's think about it for a second in super layman ways. IFF antennas -- and basically the entire unit -- are relatively small, right? Think of the 'bird shredders' o F-16s & F-18s. Those are the antennas wired to boxes and circuits feeding the information to the MFDs. The antennas are roughly the size or RWR and MAWS and don't require an array that is rather large and fitted on the leading wing edges, specifically on the leading-edge flaps of both, the Su-35S and the Su-57.

View attachment 37117

And what we see in that production Su-35S is the section in the fixed wing that is only a part of the total unit (most likely conduits for the modules channeling emitting & receiving signals/waves) while the actual antennas & modules are installed in the flaps themselves which are missing in the above photo. So it's the flaps plus what you see in the pic above. I know you already know all this stuff; I'm only prefacing it all to make my case and for others reading if they're interested, just FYI.

This is the combination of the two.
View attachment 37118

Now just from a simple, non-technical POV, does something this size and this involved in shape & design & location all be simply for IFF? And why would you need two of them on both wings? So these are the simpleton observations and wanted to get out of the way first.

Sukhoi and I believe & Tikhomirov also lists them as L-band AESA arrays and I think the general consensus on L-band waves is that they're mainly to counter not only the more commonly used X-band, but also because they have a tendency not to scatter off low observable shaping, i.e. stealth-designed aircraft. Why would they be listed as L-band arrays if they're only IFF and even EW sensors? Doesn't make sense.

L-band waves are also used by GPS carriers but we know these same arrays are being used in the Su-57 but it's using GLONASS for its GPS instrumentation, so that's out. Although on the Su-57 technical breakdown in western medium, it lists the arrays as IFF & ECM units.

From Anton Valigin
22.11.2021 09:40 RUSSIAN WEAPONS

Russia's Su-35 fighter is equipped with not one, but three active phased array radars. The antennas of two additional centimeter-band radars are located in the leading edges of the wings and are designed to search for stealthy targets.

An image of little-known devices appeared in the poster of the Ryazan Instrument Plant, which produces them. Officially, the devices are called "multifunctional digital interrogators with an active phased array antenna." According to the old Russian tradition, the versatility of the device stretched so far that as a result, it turned out to be another "combine with vertical take-off".

Long-wave radars are most effective for finding stealthy targets, as stealth technology is designed to scatter X-band radar radiation. That is why during Operation Desert Storm, the first strikes were carried out on Iraqi air defense radars, operating on centimeter waves, the most dangerous for American F-117 stealth aircraft.

There are some sources that describe the units as the Type 4283 IFF Transponder/Interrogator. To me, it makes a lot of sense that they would be a combination of the two, multifunctional digital interrogators with an active phased array antenna. I don't buy the ECM argument since the Su-35S has its own separate EW suite with the Khibiny pods. It makes no sense at all to have those plus the arrays.

Now the only one who's delved deep into the technical aspects of the arrays AND the IRBIS-E with the combination of three working together in unison is Dr Carlo Krop. His stuff goes way back and although his motivations were strictly anti-F-35 and he wanted Australia to have nothing to do with it and preferred the Su-35, he wrote up that huge technical analysis on the AESA arrays as well as the IRBIS-E but no point in linking that since you already knew about it based on that awesome article you wrote.

Even if we assume they're not AESA arrays and are strictly IFF & EW sensors, that still doesn't take away from the brutal power and capability of the IRBIS-E radar.

Thank you for all your detailed comments.

AESA arrays can indeed be used for IFF and ECM, for example if you look at the below images you'll see the AESA X-band and S-band radars with several hundred kms range for Iran's Bavar-373. As you can see the IFF arrays (shaded blue) are quite large when compared to the main array (shaded red).



And if you look here a the F-14's powerful AWG-9 radar, the T-shaped antennas (similar to TV antennas) are the IFF antennas. I think these are larger on Iran's Bavar radars and the F-14 radars because these radars are expected to work at much longer range than the F-16 and F-18's original BVR capabilities.



It's worth noting that L-band is also a common frequency range for IFF systems. I'm not sure those arrays on the wing leading edge - especially being only a single row - would be enough for detecting aircraft outside of an IFF an ECM system (I say detecting "outside" of those because for example in the analogue F-14 it's possible in certain cases to detect aircraft with the IFF before the main radar. But you can't do much with that information as it's literally just a ping).

 

[AmirIGM]

and you claim there is no need to answer the question in that article , why ?

For God's sake the dude says it can't track a fighter sized target beyond 100km and a bomber beyond 250km. Even a clean F-16C with no weapons or external tanks or conformal tanks (aka a pointless scenario) would be detected at 160km in the *normal* search mode. An F-15 between 270-340km. These are simple radar calculations that anyone can do in Excel or a calculator as long as you have the known figures from the manufacturer. That and the numerous other logical and technical fallacies in the article are why I won't bother addressing it, I just put this comment about that one section to show you why I hold it in low regard.

As for your questions about my blog post, most of them are answered in the post itself apart from the OLS-35 which I mostly just touched on. The OLS-35 is a decent system, better than anything on any of Iran's fighter aircraft, and those range figures are based on non-afterburning targets and will change a lot based on target aspect, how big the target's engines are etc. But it's still not the primary sensor, that's the Irbis radar.

 

[GoMig-21]

Thank you for all your detailed comments.

AESA arrays can indeed be used for IFF and ECM, for example if you look at the below images you'll see the AESA X-band and S-band radars with several hundred kms range for Iran's Bavar-373. As you can see the IFF arrays (shaded blue) are quite large when compared to the main array (shaded red).

Absolutely. Makes sense I can respect that for sure.

And if you look here a the F-14's powerful AWG-9 radar, the T-shaped antennas (similar to TV antennas) are the IFF antennas. I think these are larger on Iran's Bavar radars and the F-14 radars because these radars are expected to work at much longer range than the F-16 and F-18's original BVR capabilities.

Old-school radars, baby. Totally agree. Even Russia uses those TV-shaped antennas for many of its powerful ground-based radars, including the amazing Resonance-NE with its 1,100 km range L-band radar (which they claim can detect the F-35 at that range and track it at 600km) as well as its new ROFAR & photonic radars it's currently developing.

But you can't do much with that information as it's literally just a ping).

Except for if it's tied into the main radar, which in this case is the ERBIS-E which is also why my first post replying to @Ali_Baba that not only is the ERBIS-E capable of detecting targets @ 400km (even if it's 350km since some have an issue with the claimed 400km range lol) and with its max power output of 20Kw, if it still doesn't pick up an F-16 Viper, it's assisted by its AESA arrays once it reaches the array's detection range.

And even if its detection range is let's say 150km, it can ping the ERBIS-E which then takes that info and processes it to a specific coordinate to concentrate on and feed the pilot a viable target.

That gives it a huge advantage because either way, people forget that even at extreme detection ranges, the missile's max range is what dictates if a kill is possible. It's not just the detection range that is the sole advantage, it's the missile's range as well and that's why most advanced aircraft will have an authorization cue for firing its missile. We clearly saw that on the Su-35S's HUD display I posted which is standard across the board for all aircraft and missiles. Hence why this business of the Su-35S not being able to counter the newer F-16V is not accurate and completely short of factual data which we've showed.

One of the main reasons for stealth and why the US spent so much money developing the F-22 & the F-35 (and B2 and stealth drones etc.). They figured that the only way to beat the enemy in the air cannot be strictly relegated to the radar's range, because that's dictated by the missile's range which ends up being close to or similar to the enemy's missile range as well. That's when stealth becomes advantageous because now the low-observable aircraft has detected the enemy aircraft, but the enemy aircraft hasn't, hence being able to fire first. The big old tout of the F-35.

See what you started @Ali_Baba ? lol

 

[Hack-Hook]

For God's sake the dude says it can't track a fighter sized target beyond 100km and a bomber beyond 250km. Even a clean F-16C with no weapons or external tanks or conformal tanks (aka a pointless scenario) would be detected at 160km in the *normal* search mode. An F-15 between 270-340km. These are simple radar calculations that anyone can do in Excel or a calculator as long as you have the known figures from the manufacturer. That and the numerous other logical and technical fallacies in the article are why I won't bother addressing it, I just put this comment about that one section to show you why I hold it in low regard.

As for your questions about my blog post, most of them are answered in the post itself apart from the OLS-35 which I mostly just touched on. The OLS-35 is a decent system, better than anything on any of Iran's fighter aircraft, and those range figures are based on non-afterburning targets and will change a lot based on target aspect, how big the target's engines are etc. But it's still not the primary sensor, that's the Irbis radar.

As for ols 35 as I said it's not imaging sensor and you very well aware of the difference in capabilities of imaging sensors compared to not imaging ones
About the radar ranges , the question is at what distance that f16 or f15 or rafael will see the su35 and which one is more capable in jamming the radar signal of other aircraft?

 

[AmirIGM]

About the radar ranges , the question is at what distance that f16 or f15 or rafael will see the su35 and which one is more capable in jamming the radar signal of other aircraft?

I can't comment on jamming much because it's a very murky area with not much information and these things aren't simple to discuss. Those western aircraft if they are equipped with AESAs can use their radars as jammers (only if they are pointed towards the target of the jamming), while the Su-35 can use the dedicated Khibiny pods.

But for radar ranges, the Su-35 has a reduced radar cross section due to RAM treatment, I've heard estimates between 0.7-2m^2 clean and 3-5m^2 armed (depending on armament). So in most cases Su-35 will be able to see its western equivalents first. Keep in mind F-15 has no RCS reduction measures and a pretty huge RCS.

I've added a screenshot of my own RCS calculation excel sheet plus a few of threads from Flankerchan on twitter who builds computer models of various aircraft for RCS testing using public radar info. He's also estimated Rafale which I wasn't able to find figures for.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1750329135359197365

https://twitter.com/x/status/1754377713228648480

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751051290933891474

 

[AmirIGM]

Old-school radars, baby.

Well, sure but remember legacy F-16 and F-18 are pretty old too. They just also have itty-bitty little nosecones with equally puny radars inside them. They can't get around physics, these aircraft have relatively short radar ranges even now compared to the old F-14 with its gigantic AWG-9 antenna. Hence why they also had/have smaller IFF antennas.

Just look at the size difference.

Except for if it's tied into the main radar

I was only talking about the F-14 because I have some experience with it in DCS. In the RIO seat you can press the IFF button and see everything the IFF antenna sees displayed on an analogue display. It's quite an archaic system and what I'm describing is something quite niche. I really don't know if it would be used or even possible on modern single seat fighters such as Su-35, F-16/18/35 etc. which have a lot of automation for these kinds of niche functions.

Remember the F-14 is one of the last fighter aircraft to have a second seat dedicated to the radar operator, hence the backseater is called the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) not a WSO. Even the F-15E variants can basically be flown with just the pilot, the WSO has little to no role in air-to-air combat and was always meant to reduce pilot workload in air-to-ground missions.

 

[Immortals]

Well, sure but remember legacy F-16 and F-18 are pretty old too. They just also have itty-bitty little nosecones with equally puny radars inside them. They can't get around physics, these aircraft have relatively short radar ranges even now compared to the old F-14 with its gigantic AWG-9 antenna. Hence why they also had/have smaller IFF antennas.

Just look at the size difference.
View attachment 37194View attachment 37196View attachment 37198

I was only talking about the F-14 because I have some experience with it in DCS. In the RIO seat you can press the IFF button and see everything the IFF antenna sees displayed on an analogue display. It's quite an archaic system and what I'm describing is something quite niche. I really don't know if it would be used or even possible on modern single seat fighters such as Su-35, F-16/18/35 etc. which have a lot of automation for these kinds of niche functions.

Remember the F-14 is one of the last fighter aircraft to have a second seat dedicated to the radar operator, hence the backseater is called the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) not a WSO. Even the F-15E variants can basically be flown with just the pilot, the WSO has little to no role in air-to-air combat and was always meant to reduce pilot workload in air-to-ground missions.

Just want to point out that IFF is notoriously unreliable even to this day. Hence why pilots are hesistant to use BVR at long ranges, plus the statistical abysmal nature of BVR in modern combat which is backed by several military academy studies and journals.

So I wouldn’t put too much stock in IFF during war time especially for the Iranian side that will be facing the full brunt of NATO/Israeli EW jamming and electronic warfare hacking/illusions

 

[AmirIGM]

Just want to point out that IFF is notoriously unreliable even to this day. Hence why pilots are hesistant to use BVR at long ranges, plus the statistical abysmal nature of BVR in modern combat which is backed by several military academy studies and journals.

So I wouldn’t put too much stock in IFF during war time especially for the Iranian side that will be facing the full brunt of NATO/Israeli EW jamming and electronic warfare hacking/illusions

Valid point

 

[Hack-Hook]

while the Su-35 can use the dedicated Khibiny pods.

While the pod is capable and there is no doubt about it . The question is that if it's part of the deal .

 

[Lulldapull]

I just believe seein all da data and keenly observing modern warfare that manned aviation is well n truly on borrowed time. Wes talkin a generation or even less here and its just all goin be relegated to second line duties, and within a further decade or so, completely obsolete, even among third world countries.

Ever decreasing numbers of military's sees any value today let alone a generation from now in having a manned AF, purely on a cost/ benefit ratio. Drones/ missiles are so much more preferable now and so much cheaper.

An F-16 can't approach Russian/ Chinese/ Iranian borders today without a good likelihood of it getting shot down. Likewise for an Su-35 pulling a trick on the GCC or Israel AD's in a big joke......lol

F-35/ J-20 are the last gasps of the Air Force guys......everyone knows. Just look at Ukraine.

 

[Immortals]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1785527445459698074

 

[Lulldapull]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1785527445459698074

Brah, a decade and a half ago I used to read comments from young Irani kids who following da IRGC model of warfare used to predict da future of modern warfare, right here, on dis very forum, sayin just how over rated manned weaponry was (back then)…..and I used to think these kids are crazy and have lost their minds.

Today I stand corrected!

Hack hook was one of em, when he used to say what he did 15 years ago. God knows where de others have moved onto?

Today wes seein the truth on what these kids used to say as da reality in the high tech head on conflicts of Ukraine and the Middle East……

Hard to believe but it’s just amazing just how on da money these Irani kids were so long ago…..

 

[Immortals]

Brah, a decade and a half ago I used to read comments from young Irani kids who following da IRGC model of warfare used to predict da future of modern warfare, right here, on dis very forum, sayin just how over rated manned weaponry was (back then)…..and I used to think these kids are crazy and have lost their minds.

Today I stand corrected!

Hack hook was one of em, when he used to say what he did 15 years ago. God knows where de others have moved onto?

Today wes seein the truth on what these kids used to say as da reality in the high tech head on conflicts of Ukraine and the Middle East……

Hard to believe but it’s just amazing just how on da money these Irani kids were so long ago…..

Manned weaponary is what it’s pummeling Ukraine everyday dropping Cruise missiles, glide FABs, air launcher BMs, etc

Iran would need 1M+ missiles to match the amount of ordnances Russian airforce has dropped on Ukraine.

Anyone tells you manned weaponary is useless, lives in a fairytale Hollywood call of duty world.

It will be another 20 years before fighter jets are as good with an AI pilot than a human one.