Why the MiG-35 AESA Radar Outshines the Su-35 PESA Radar: A Deep Dive

The choice of radar technology for modern fighter jets like the MiG-35 and Su-35 is not just a technical decision, but a reflection of the design philosophies, intended roles, and operational requirements of each aircraft. This article explores the differences between the AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar used by the MiG-35 and the PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) radar used by the Su-35, shedding light on the technological advancements and practical considerations for each.

Technology Advancement: AESA vs. PESA

AESA radars represent a more advanced technology compared to PESA.

They offer superior performance in terms of detection range. They enable the simultaneous tracking of multiple targets. AESA radars provide better resistance to jamming, enhancing overall stealth and operational capabilities.

Multirole Capability

The MiG-35, designed as a multirole fighter, leverages the enhanced capabilities of AESA radar to achieve improved air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting. This improves situational awareness and enhances electronic warfare capabilities, making the aircraft more versatile in a variety of combat scenarios.

For instance, the AESA radar on MiG-35 can detect and track multiple targets simultaneously with greater reliability and accuracy. This is crucial for modern air combat where the ability to process and engage multiple threats at once can significantly enhance the fighter's effectiveness.

Cost and Development

The MiG-35 was developed relatively recently, incorporating modern technologies, which allows it to include AESA radar as a standard feature. This reflects the trend in modern fighter development where advanced radar capabilities are increasingly becoming a key feature for multirole fighters.

In contrast, the Su-35, based on the older Su-27 design, originally used PESA technology. While it has been upgraded, the radar system reflects a more traditional approach to radar technology. This includes the use of PESA radars, which are still effective and provide good performance for the aircraft's intended roles, including air superiority and ground attack.

Cost and Complexity of PESA Systems

PESA systems are generally less expensive and less complex than AESA systems, making them more attractive for certain applications. However, when the aircraft's primary roles do not demand the full capabilities of AESA technology, PESA systems can be a cost-effective solution.

The simplicity and lower cost of PESA systems make them more suitable for applications where the aircraft's mission does not require advanced multi-target tracking and resistance to jamming. Additionally, PESA radars offer decent target tracking and range, making them effective for traditional air superiority and ground attack missions.

Conclusion

In summary, the MiG-35's use of AESA radar reflects its role as a modern multirole fighter with advanced capabilities, while the Su-35's PESA radar is a product of its heritage and operational focus. Each radar type has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them depends on the specific design goals and operational needs of the aircraft.

While AESA radars offer superior performance and advanced features, they come with a higher development and maintenance cost. Conversely, PESA radars may be more suitable for aircraft with more traditional roles and lower operational budgets.

Understanding the technological and operational implications of these choices is crucial for mission planning and aircraft performance optimization. As technology continues to evolve, the balance between advanced radar capabilities and cost-effectiveness will remain a key consideration in the design and development of modern fighter jets.