Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 24 (2 members and 22 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sepheronx
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2015
    • 320

    Originally posted by JSR View Post
    export price of Su-35 is higher than Su-30SM. it is the local parts that are expensive as they are more advanced and designed for higher standards of Ruaf.
    it wasn't export prices though, it was from the MoD contract.

    Comment

    • JSR
      JSR
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2011
      • 4976

      those must be some R&D and plant modernization money part of contract to make it closer in technology to Su-35. Su-30SM is fundamentally outdated compared to Su-35. Su-35 has much more titanium use and much mroe advanced engine and lighter radar. Su-30MKI started with that outdated French CRTs from 1990s.

      Comment

      • ActionJackson
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Oct 2010
        • 289

        Originally posted by sepheronx View Post
        Alright, so that is the same video then. Although, it doesn't state RCS of the aircrafts being spotted. Would be interesting to see various targets and various ranges detected based upon the 3m^2 RCS. I know the developers state about 350 - 400km detection range, but I am curious how they got those numbers. I know they test it out quite a lot prior to introducing it into service, but still.
        They predict it based on the single pulse radar max range equation in combination with the multi-pulse equations.

        They validate by flying out to an area with ideal, no noise conditions of a remote test range and test against targets.

        In reality (depending on the enemy) range will be reduced by half due to the enemy's noise jamming and then another 5/6s of the remainder by use of stealth (depending on the enemy).

        Depending on the opponent, that 350-400 km can come down to 30km or less.

        Comment

        • haavarla
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2008
          • 6695

          They predict it based on the single pulse radar max range equation in combination with the multi-pulse equations.

          They validate by flying out to an area with ideal, no noise conditions of a remote test range and test against targets.

          In reality (depending on the enemy) range will be reduced by half due to the enemy's noise jamming and then another 5/6s of the remainder by use of stealth (depending on the enemy).

          Depending on the opponent, that 350-400 km can come down to 30km or less.
          Not gonna commenting on any radar performance or RCS signal or jamming, since its impossible for me to calculate anything.
          But if you have paid any attention to the Su-30SM and Su-35S operating out of Latakia AB in Syria, they have scored multiple hits on UAV, at least that is the only thing those kill marks for.. unless we are talking about an actual jets, which i highly doubt.

          Not all UAV's are at the size of Global Hawk.. some are very small. Also it should be possible for Israel ,US or Turkey to keep tab on Russian flights with their E-3 and other ELINT.
          So since you seems to be able to calculate the RCS and radar range of things, how did the Sukhoi's manage to even find and paint those UAV's?
          Last edited by haavarla; 11th September 2017, 00:18.
          Thanks

          Comment

          • TomcatViP
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Nov 2011
            • 6108

            size and RCS are not relevant to each others. A B2 for example has an RCS several order of magnitude lower than it's surface area.

            Comment

            • sepheronx
              Senior Member
              • Jun 2015
              • 320

              Originally posted by ActionJackson View Post
              They predict it based on the single pulse radar max range equation in combination with the multi-pulse equations.

              They validate by flying out to an area with ideal, no noise conditions of a remote test range and test against targets.

              In reality (depending on the enemy) range will be reduced by half due to the enemy's noise jamming and then another 5/6s of the remainder by use of stealth (depending on the enemy).

              Depending on the opponent, that 350-400 km can come down to 30km or less.
              I doubt that they don't test it against noise since they know what they are going up against rather than keeping something ideal. And how do you jam the noise? A lot doesn't make much sense and the Russians with their experience mixed with having their own similar jets to most advanced nations, then they would be able to test it in all types of environments. Be it in a stand in testing facility to flying it.

              Unless this is simply a general trend among all aircraft system/sub system makers. Like the EW/ECM/ECCM subsystems?

              Comment

              • sepheronx
                Senior Member
                • Jun 2015
                • 320

                Got another question. Is SOLT-25 to be used on all Su-25SM3 upgrades?

                Comment

                • TR1
                  TR1
                  http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                  • Oct 2010
                  • 9819

                  https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/993813.html

                  Motor-Sich has exported 170 TV3-117 engines to Russia in the first half of 2017.

                  lol @ anyone who believed the plans that domestic production would be enough by 2017.
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • a89
                    a89
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Sep 2011
                    • 374

                    lol @ anyone who believed the plans that domestic production would be enough by 2017.
                    Current goal is to replace imports by 2019. Previous data:

                    - 540 in 2015 for 327.5 million $.
                    - 250 in 2016 for 145.5 million $.
                    - 96 in Jan-March 2017 [16+36+44]
                    History and Military Technology blog

                    alejandro-8en.blogspot.com

                    Comment

                    • Scar
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2015
                      • 682

                      Pantsir-SM



                      Comment

                      • KGB
                        KGB
                        Senior Member
                        • Mar 2016
                        • 1426

                        size and RCS are not relevant to each others. A B2 for example has an RCS several order of magnitude lower than it's surface area.
                        Yes they are. And the B2 example does not validate your statement. If you took the same B2 and shrunk it in total size by 15%, it would be more stealthy than the originally sized one.

                        Comment

                        • stealthflanker
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Sep 2015
                          • 1016

                          @Scar is that article said that the new antenna shown in the article is an AESA ?

                          Comment

                          • TR1
                            TR1
                            http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                            • Oct 2010
                            • 9819

                            Yes.

                            AFAR- AESA in Russian.
                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • stealthflanker
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Sep 2015
                              • 1016

                              I see. hmm the existence of feed at front is kinda hair raising tho. kinda reminds me of the Pero and Klinok.

                              My guess it's a feed for 2nd frequency band, reserved for countermeasure.

                              Comment

                              • stealthflanker
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Sep 2015
                                • 1016

                                Can i speculate a bit on implementation ?

                                What do you guys think on my guess on architecture for Pantsyr SM's new engagement radar.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	speculations_by_stealthflanker-dbnpcq6.png
Views:	1
Size:	81.5 KB
ID:	3676643

                                It's too generic But.. it's quite clear i think. So i speculated that the design is Hybrid multi-band AESA-PESA design with TRM and transmitter for the second band located at back. The front face of the antenna is the PESA part, containing the radiating elements for the AESA and PESA's phase shfiters and radiating element. Behind it there is a reflector for reflecting wave originating from the feed to "feed" the collecting PESA phase shifters antenna for beamsteering. Another part is AESA waveguide or strip to carry power from AESA trm to radiating element. They seem long in the image, BUT Pantsyr works in milimmetric wave band, thus the phase shifters is probably smaller than your little finger.

                                The array would be full face with number of elements about 8595 (assuming 1.5 cm wavelength) or higher. Given 2 band operations, only half at least would be available for the each band. Not a problem tho as one need to do is to arrange the elements and optimize scanning angle. Tor system did that and managed to achieve 42 dB of gain with only 500 phase shifters modules, spacing however is 3 wavelength and it put hard limit on electronic scan, to 7 degrees. I expect the SM will do better due to more elements being available.

                                Half of the modules that are not used will act as taper to optimize sidelobe.

                                The rationale of such design is basically to minimize cost as full fledged dual band AESA in the same working frequency as Pantsyr will probably cost more than the whole system itself. The 0.9-1 m diameter AESA. assuming full FOV will require at least 8595 modules. Price of modules in Ku band is still quite high due to required precision manufacture to make them.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	trm_price_by_stealthflanker-dbnseb2.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	39.9 KB
ID:	3676644

                                Higher frequency may inflict even higher price. 8595 modules, assuming U$ 750 in 2017 will make the total price of radar at least U$ 6,446,250 or yeah six million dollar Should true dual band AESA design sought, sharing the same radiator, the cost would easily double unless the second band use less modules. The Russian system with arrangement i speculated, might cost less, or at least half of the "full fledged" AESA.

                                It's true that forward feed spaced array will suffer not only from phase shifter loss but also non optimum sidelobe performance due to blocking. The AESA part however will only suffer from the blocking by the feed. If the intention for the second PESA band is to provide "emergency" band in jamming condition OR missile guidance/capture i think the penalty could be minimum as larger beamwidth is desirable in capturing missile during flight (Thus reason of why missile capture antenna on command guidance systems are small, they're wide beamwidth). The feed can also be easily made to have circular polarization, a desirable feature for missile guidance command link as it less affected by missile attitude, the main AESA array can be optimized to have horizontal or vertical polarization to engage airborne target.

                                The prime band could be made in lower frequency (X-band) thus achieveing even lesser cost BUT wider beamwidth generated by X-band may make the radar runs into problem of glint while engaging target at low elevation angle (horizon) due to multipath generated when the mainlobe or sidelobe hit the ground.

                                Comment

                                • Dr.Snufflebug
                                  Boggleboople snufflebug
                                  • Aug 2012
                                  • 527

                                  Just a nice angle:

                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • stealthflanker
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Sep 2015
                                    • 1016

                                    @TR1

                                    This is what we got from 85-90 mil price of Su-35.

                                    Click image for larger version

Name:	21558577_344981369278024_6819915274093616268_n_by_stealthflanker-dbnt86e.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	51.8 KB
ID:	3676657

                                    Comment

                                    • TR1
                                      TR1
                                      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                      • Oct 2010
                                      • 9819

                                      Nice find. That explains the pricetag.

                                      Not per unit at all apparently.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • stealthflanker
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Sep 2015
                                        • 1016

                                        The initiative now lies in our side. Especially in that first point.

                                        Problem is that the NTP our Gas turbine maintenance company, is privately owned. There is a concern that it will have difficulty in actually find funds or state funds to upgrade the facility. Testing and maintenance of new engine requires tooling which need to be purchased and of course manpower. Plus there will be concern about profitability given the small fleet we operates. If UAE purchased Su-35, we might got the cake for their engine maintenance as when Iran sent their 727 and 737 engines to be maintained here (yes they did).

                                        Another weird in the paper is the "PT APP".. which well owned by Sinar mas Group. This according to google search is a pulp and paper company, which well if it really need to produce hose etc it would have to invest a whole new industrial base for it.

                                        The worst of all is that those points could be just a "placeholder" just to fullfill the constitutional conditions (That everything we bought abroad need to have some percentages of local content and ToT)

                                        However this is not the first time that mess occurred. our BMP-3 "ToT" program suffers similar story... and no not the fault in Russian side.

                                        Comment

                                        • Scar
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Nov 2015
                                          • 682

                                          This is ******* disaster. Ka-52 "attacked" fishermen.
                                          Title says it's a weapon's control-circuit failure. Happened a few days ago near Saint-Petersburg.
                                          Last edited by Scar; 19th September 2017, 09:06.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X