Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    F-117 shotdown: you can look here at Hornetfins post (he was radar operator), he has god insight in this things:

    http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....29022&start=90

    Comment


      You don't compare APS with Aircraft radar. We dont even know in what band Armata radars work.

      Comment


        Long time lurker, but what has any of this got to do with the Su-57? Instead of flag waving, baiting and irrelevant discussion could we get back to the Su-57. By that I don't mean endless discussions about blockers, engine position etc which have gone round before ad infinitum.

        Create a new thread for what you are discussing at this point.

        Comment


          @shania

          "just look at how big are trophy aparatures... but nobody claim they are for anything else that APS. afganit hardkill component of aps can only defeat horizontal shot, it cant defend agaist top down attack. " Made in 2005/2006 its an AESA doppler radar electronics can change over time in size.

          @moon_light

          "I suggest that you open a dictionary and find the definition for the word "Metaphorically". It is not the same as a "theory". I already made it very simple: people can say "Usain bolt is lightning fast" that only mean he can run very fast, not "therotically he can run at 220,000,000 miles per hour"."

          I suggest comprehension. I called it a theory because the system is not proven to work yet. That is all hence I called it a theory.

          "Bottom line if the plasma is enough to make the missile invisible against ground/aircraft radar, then it will also blind the missile own seeker"

          Yeah it seems you know more than someone with a background in physics. The plasma technology was a problem in one of their projects regarding aircraft known as mig 1.44 if I recall correctly.......But having to pick up a plasma shield project again with a missile makes me raise an eyebrow.

          "But iam not the only one who notice that. Have you seen how small is the APS antenna?."

          Yes and there are air to air missile with AESA like the J/APG-2 that can create a 28km autonomous lock onto targets using their own transmission power and your suggesting a bigger and newer radar on a tank than a missile cannot get a 100km range?. For all we know the JNAAMs and K-77M smaller in size will more than likely have a farther range than 28kms locking onto aerial targets. That 28 km range on a missile is focused on an aerial target that is smaller in size on radar, than compared to a tank. If a tank had a J/apg-2 sensor it can have a longer autonomous lock onto targets as big as tanks farther than aircraft because of size on radar. https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/R...ar_Targets.htm How far do you think a J/APG-2 can have a lock onto a 100m2 target like the B-52 If the 28km was a suggested random lock on to a regular target like a F-16? For all we know the bigger radar on the T-14 than a J/APG-2 can account for a very huge target on a 100km range.
          Last edited by panzerfeist1; 9th August 2018, 12:58.

          Comment


            Does anyone have closer images of the T-14 radar so I can closely compare it to the side arrays of the SU-57?
            Click image for larger version

Name:	draw.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	413.0 KB
ID:	3681395

            Comment


              F-117 shotdown: you can look here at Hornetfins post (he was radar operator), he has god insight in this things:
              However, there may be other explanations for reported acquisition/tracking ranges, for example Serbs emitting only interminttently to avoid being attacked etc.
              So many different things have been reported about F-117 shootdown (some of it deliberate misinformation) that it is hard to make many conclusions from publicly available information.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Krivakapa
                https://www.kurir.rs/vesti/drustvo/3...-bi-bio-oboren
                Becuase Ancic (book writer) wasn't radar operator on P-18 radar, nor he was in command trailer when P-18 operator reported he have weak returns on +50 or +60km distance (Zoltan said 60-70km) so he asked to turn off radar because they returns they have are far away. P-18 would be use for short period same as P-15, because of HARM.
                Click image for larger version

Name:	F-117.png
Views:	2
Size:	143.6 KB
ID:	3681399
                At 100-150 MHz frontal rcs raised to 6 dBsm ( around 4 m2 )
                At 300-350 MHz frontal rcs fluctuated between -6 to 0 dBsm ( around 0.25 - 1 m2 )
                At 400MHz -1 GHz, there is a small frontal spike (about 1 wide) where rcs reach 0 dBsm (around 1m2)
                P-18 operate in VHF band (range from 30 MHz-300 MHz) so i think 50-60 km detection range is reasonable.
                P-15 operate in UHF band (range from 300 MHz to 3 GHz) so it is plausible to detect F-117 from 22-23 km if it transmit between 300-350 MHz, or if the operator is very lucky and look at 1-1.5 spike
                SNR-125 operate in X-band and deteted F-117 at distance less than 14 km, that support the claim that F-117 RCS is -30 dBsm (0.001m2) in X-band.

                P/s: I just checked, detection range of P-15 is 150 km, assumming this is detection range is against target with RCS of 10 m2, this radar will detect target will RCS of -30 dBsm (0.001m2) from 14 km and it will detect target with RCS = -20dBsm (0.01m2) from 26 km, Ancic and his crew see the F-117 from 23 km, so F-117 RCS at UHF is X with -20 dBsm > X > -30 dBsm
                Last edited by mig-31bm; 10th August 2018, 04:58.

                Comment


                  @mig-31bm

                  "SNR-125 operate in X-band and detected F-117 at distance less than 14 km, that support the claim that F-117 RCS is -30 dBsm (0.001m2) in X-band."

                  Is there a legitimate source on the P-15 radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in X-band? Or what the P-15 itself can read in noise level and what range it receives that noise?
                  Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th August 2018, 05:55.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by panzerfeist
                    I suggest comprehension. I called it a theory because the system is not proven to work yet. That is all hence I called it a theory.
                    Ask anyone speak English and see if they interpret the sentence the way you do.

                    Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                    Yeah it seems you know more than someone with a background in physics.
                    I certainly know more than people who pretend like they have background in Physics.

                    Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                    Yes and there are air to air missile with AESA like the J/APG-2 that can create a 28km autonomous lock onto targets using their own transmission power and your suggesting a bigger and newer radar on a tank than a missile cannot get a 100km range?.
                    J/APG-2 is F-2 fire control radar, it is far larger and more powerful than Armata's APS radar, aircraft have higher cooling capacity too. APS sensor operate at high frequency and higher PRF
                    Btw: APG-2 range is longer than 29 km, stop cherry pick your information.
                    Last edited by moon_light; 10th August 2018, 06:06.

                    Comment


                      @moon_light

                      "Ask anyone speak English and see if they interpret the sentence the way you do."
                      Scientists say metamorphically, I say theoritically because intercepting a needle with another needle researchers viewing it possible is just a theory until proven to work. Theories are based off ideas, intercepting a needle with another needle is based off the idea of the researchers.

                      "I certainly know more than people who pretend like they have background in Physics. " Jack Zhang is a legitimate person on quora that does have a background in physics. Look at most of his answers and you will find that out yourself

                      "J/APG-2 is F-2 fire control radar, it is far larger and more powerful than Armata's APS radar, aircraft have higher cooling capacity too. APS sensor operate at high frequency and higher PRF
                      Btw: APG-2 range is longer than 29 km, stop cherry pick your information. "

                      You have probably have not paid any attention to the last pages going on in this thread which is understandable. Agat missile sources suggested it can create a 20km lock on utilizing its own sensors. J/apg-2 from sources back claims 40% longer autonomous range than Agat r-77. https://defense-update.com/20120314_...re-lethal.html

                      "The AAM-4B is fitted with a missile seeker featuring Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radar and a greatly improved data link. The AAM-4B will be coupled with enhanced J/APG-2 radar that gives pilots a detection range far superior to what they have now."

                      AAM-4b coupled with AESA radar what does that tell you?

                      Comment


                        You have probably have not paid any attention to the last pages going on in this thread which is understandable. Agat missile sources suggested it can create a 20km lock on utilizing its own sensors. J/apg-2 from sources back claims 40% longer autonomous range than Agat r-77. https://defense-update.com/20120314_...re-lethal.html
                        If you really understand what you read. You would see that the range figures refers to A-Pole or when the missile goes "active". It says nothing about the range of the active seeker itself. The 20 Km figure is the range where the AAM Goes "Active" and start searching for its own target.

                        You should also NOT compare the APS sensor onboard a tank with fighter radar as both designed with very different purpose in mind and may have different design, say power allocation or even frequency band. You seriously make a leap of faith which unfortunately undesirable if any serious discussion to be held on the subject.

                        Comment


                          J/apg-2 is part of the AESA sensor of the missile it already stated that in that source. AAM-4b uses J/apg-2 radar, K-77M uses Izdeliye-50-1 radar, do you get the hint? You will even see the radar on the K-77M and the radar on the AAM-4b(even though its a picture)

                          http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weap...001032001.aspx "When the R-77 missile is at a distance of about 20 km its radar homing head activates leading the missile to its target. Means no reliance from aircraft but using its own seeker instead to lock on the target.

                          “As the missile comes within 20 km (12 mi) of its target, the missile switches to its active radar mode(meaning not relying on transmission from an aircraft but its own transmission). The host radar system(referring to the radar system of the missile) maintains computed target information in case the target breaks the missile's lock-on.” Remember Japan added a 40% longer autonomous range than the Agat which they clearly stated.

                          https://plus.google.com/+%D0%A0%D0%9...ts/bZPqfRdNyNj

                          I wanted to see a bigger picture to see the amount of modules on the T-14 since its already stated the SU-57 has 358 for sides. Which is why I wanted a decent comparison.
                          Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th August 2018, 08:05.

                          Comment


                            J/apg-2 is part of the AESA sensor of the missile it already stated that in that source. AAM-4b uses J/apg-2 radar, K-77M uses Izdeliye-50-1 radar, do you get the hint? You will even see the radar on the K-77M and the radar on the AAM-4b(even though its a picture)
                            Do you even aware that such operating modes are nothing special ? Our old N001VEP on our Su-30MK2 can do the thing, providing Mid-course update for RVV-AE even without itself being an AESA ?


                            Remember Japan added a 40% longer autonomous range than the Agat which they clearly stated.
                            and this Autonumous range does not say the seeker's range. But the distance where it goes active and start searching target on its own.
                            ----

                            I wanted to see a bigger picture to see the amount of modules on the T-14 since its already stated the SU-57 has 358 for sides. Which is why I wanted a decent comparison.
                            And i will tell you if they indeed even work in same band. It will have Less amount of module and perhaps even Lesser power due to the fact we may not have 200-250 kW power generation of fighter aircraft. It's a common sense.

                            Comment


                              " Our old N001VEP on our Su-30MK2 can do the thing, providing Mid-course update for RVV-AE even without itself being an AESA ?" I am not talking about updates. I am talking about the missile using its own radar. What does the N001VEP an aircraft radar have anything to do with a radar on a missile that can autonomously lock on to targets at a certain range? These missiles use their own transmission. RVV-AE even though not an AESA has a radar to engage targets at a 20km range without reliance from an aircraft.

                              "and this Autonumous range does not say the seeker's range. But the distance where it goes active and start searching target on its own. " How does it go active searching for the target on its own without transmission reliance from aircraft in engaging targets? I will give you a hint.....Its called using your own radar. It already stated it uses its host radar system when its activated to follow targets on its own.

                              "It will have Less amount of module and perhaps even Lesser power due to the fact we may not have 200-250 kW power generation of fighter aircraft. It's a common sense." How less of a power and how less of a T/R module count with power is what I am referring to.

                              And here people are glad KGB is gone while certain users are even more questionable than him.
                              Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th August 2018, 08:36.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                Scientists say metamorphically, I say theoritically because intercepting a needle with another needle researchers viewing it possible is just a theory until proven to work. Theories are based off ideas, intercepting a needle with another needle is based off the idea of the researchers.
                                You can repeat that as much as you want, the English language won't suddenly change because you feel like it


                                Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                Jack Zhang is a legitimate person on quora that does have a background in physics. Look at most of his answers and you will find that out yourself
                                Based what you have written here, clearly, you will assume whoever said what you want to hear is credible

                                Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                Is there a legitimate source on the P-15 radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in X-band? Or what the P-15 itself can read in noise level and what range it receives that noise?
                                That wasn't directed at me but to be up-front
                                Your bias is to much for anyone to take you seriously. You don't care what is credible or plausible, you want to hear that Russian weapons are the best, so you cherry pick your information, you search through Google for any big number associated with Russian equipments without learning basic knowledge of what these paramenters even mean. When you find anything that fit you agenda, you believe them immediately and making dozens leap of faith try to justify your favorite interpretation. When it comes to US equipment you do the exact opposite, regardless you how many credible or logical explaination presented, you keep demand more because you don't like that.

                                Comment


                                  @panzerfeist1
                                  And here people are glad KGB is gone while certain users are even more questionable than him
                                  Are you still oblivious to the fact that you are that user?.
                                  Because not many here is as knowledgeable as stealthflanker, as a matter of fact, you are no where near his level.

                                  Comment


                                    You can repeat that as much as you want, the English language won't suddenly change because you feel like it

                                    I called it a theory, because its not proven to work yet, its based off an idea of researchers. Yes or no?

                                    "Based what you have written here, clearly, you will assume whoever said what you want to hear is credible"

                                    Oh how badly I would like to see you get in a debate with him even when you have not proven yet what he said is wrong.

                                    "Your bias is to much for anyone to take you seriously. You don't care what is credible or plausible, you want to hear that Russian weapons are the best, so you cherry pick your information, you search through Google for any big number associated with Russian equipments without learning basic knowledge of what these paramenters even mean."

                                    This is the kettle calling the pot black. 100km impossible? A 28km range lock on can refer to a 1m2 target, do you think it will have a bigger range if its a 100m2 target? Do you think a tank will have more modules than a missile radar to engage targets more far away? I still have not heard an answer from any of these people. dropping a plasma project and than picking up another one. Why do you think they would still pursue this project. Nuclear powered cruise missile projects dropped but yet picked up again to pursue. Its biased idiots that quickly pull the impossible card and thinking it wont work. Things are done for a reason.

                                    "to US equipment you do the exact opposite, regardless you how many credible or logical explaination presented, you keep demand more because you don't like that. " how by asking questions.

                                    @garry

                                    "Are you still oblivious to the fact that you are that user?.
                                    Because not many here is as knowledgeable as stealthflanker, as a matter of fact, you are no where near his level. " Do both of you have F-16.net user accounts? I remember getting Arian's account deleted on F-16.net going from 1 warning to 3 warnings with me. Stating how a tank from Iraq was equivalent to a T-72B in terms of armour protection. I argued that the Assad Babil had less protection than a T-72M for being a downgrade of a downgrade export. another user gets pissed posts a 104-0 F-15 undefeated meme with how superior US aircraft's were I respond how much of those were downgrades or outdated. Than the entire forum there got extremely pissed and I basically temporarily caused WW3 over there. I am starting to see a similar trend here which is why I am asking? I only lasted like 3 days there.
                                    Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th August 2018, 09:13.

                                    Comment


                                      Interview with Chief Test Pilot Su-57 Anatoly Kvochur

                                      Подробнее на ТАСС:
                                      http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/5442700

                                      Test pilot: the Su-57 fighter can manage a group of unmanned aircraft


                                      Подробнее на ТАСС:
                                      http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/5442700
                                      "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                      Comment


                                        I called it a theory, because its not proven to work yet, its based off an idea of researchers. Yes or no?
                                        No

                                        Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                        Oh how badly I would like to see you get in a debate with him even when you have not proven yet what he said is wrong.
                                        This is the kettle calling the pot black. 100km impossible? A 28km range lock on can refer to a 1m2 target, do you think it will have a bigger range if its a 100m2 target? Do you think a tank will have more modules than a missile radar to engage targets more far away? I still have not heard an answer from any of these people. dropping a plasma project and than picking up another one. Why do you think they would still pursue this project. Nuclear powered cruise missile projects dropped but yet picked up again to pursue. Its biased idiots that quickly pull the impossible card and thinking it wont work. Things are done for a reason.
                                        As if i should care what some nobody say on quora, and i see you try to find prey on quora:? Paul Krupa?
                                        https://www.quora.com/Whats-better-t...-the-US-Abrams
                                        Have you conveniently forget the obvious size difference between T-50 side array and T-14 sensor ? or their obvious different frequency?

                                        how by asking questions.
                                        No, by the way you react to new information. Random website say T-14 with APS with 100 km detection range, you dont care about the credibility, the plausibility or even common sense. But you immediately question the actual anechoic chamber measurement of F-117 and SNR-125 chart because they shows F-117 with low RCS.
                                        Last edited by moon_light; 10th August 2018, 10:23.

                                        Comment


                                          "No"

                                          finally a solid answer.

                                          "Have you forget the obvious size difference between T-50 side array and T-14 sensor ?"

                                          Ohh I have not forgotten the real question is why was the consideration of a 100km AESA not feasible? If radars on missiles can track aerial targets by themselves at a 28km range. While a T-14 radar which is bigger than a missile radar with more modules cannot track larger targets than certain aerial targets at a longer range.

                                          "Random website say T-14 with APS with 100 km detection range, you dont care about the credility, the plausibility or even common sense. But you immediately question the actual anechoic chamber measurement of F-117 and SNR-125 chart because they shows F-117 with low RCS. " Yes but no one explained why it is impossible than simply saying size. While radar sizes on missiles can engage aerial targets at a 28km or more range especially bigger targets but yet complaints of a T-14 radar with more modules than a missile cant track a bigger target at 100km is absurd unless you have a reason it is not than this discussion is more than likely over. Asking for an SRN-125 chart is bias now to? your acting like that question alone undermines the estimated RCS value of the F-117.

                                          "or their obvious different frequency?" They have a different frequency? What is the frequency my only assumption is that its a fire control radar to engage aerial targets like it says it can do.
                                          Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th August 2018, 10:37.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X