Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    @F/A-XX
    Poor Iraqi guys had enough coming back alive after trying to disturb a bit the US air power, I wouldn't call they built a mythical reputation or I was not not meaning it that way at least. But it is undeniable that the sheer speed of the aircraft made it very difficult at times for even F-15s to engage them. Logical in my view since a 4 M MRAAM against a high-flying, almost 3 M fighter is going to be challenged by pure kinematic performance of the target. And this is a hard fact I wanted to contrast with some IMO over-hyped and vague concepts that are circulated about 5G avionics. Nobody denying that up to date avionics are critical, but I simply fail to understand what elements are so unique in Western 5G avionics that Russian and others do not have or cannot implement, progressively closing any potential gap present. Sensor fusion is done by most updated 4G fighters. Also data links are present, high power processors and high speed data buses, multi-spectral sensors... just a genuine question because seeing the Su-57 avionics I find it completely credible and in line with 5G standards. SW development may be at a lower level still but how people can evaluate this from open sources is questionable I think.

    Comment


      #62
      Nobody denying that up to date avionics are critical, but I simply fail to understand what elements are so unique in Western 5G avionics that Russian and others do not have or cannot implement, progressively closing any potential gap present.

      There aren't any. Talking down the Su-57's avionics is just fanboyism. Yes, the Russian microelectronics industry is lacking in relation to 'Western' tech (which, design wise, is centered around US/UK/Israel). But most 'modern' fighters have old - really old - microarchitectures. The central processors and the data busses of the Raptor or Typhoon are hefty enough so that you might be able to play DOOM on it. I'm talking about the original 1993 shooter though and not the 2016 remake! It's all ancient. And the T/R units in the radars have been replaced - as with associated DSPs which helps a bit - but that still leaves considerable weaknesses.


      The avionics package of newer aircraft such as the Su-57 and J-20 will (in most respects) obliterate that of everything in service with the exception of the F-35. They will even hold their own to that fairly well. Anyone saying otherwise has never heard of Moore's Law, or they are arrogant enough to disregard it.


      More importantly, the avionics packages of the F-35, J-20, and Su-57 can GROW in ways that those of other aircraft simply cannot!

      Comment


        #63
        @LFMS
        Russians do not believe in stealth the way it is discussed in the West.
        If Russia didn't believe in stealth, it would not have built the su 57. Russia did not need a new jet. The Pak Fa program was 1st and foremost , designed to neutralize the stealth advantage of the west. It is basic military doctrine. The most distinctive feature of 5th gen is stealth. The most distinctive feature of the su 57 is stealth.

        Maybe their plane looks less "stealth"
        I understand that you weren't trying to be flippant but that is just a nonsensical statement. But I understand why you wrote it. The western defense media has been chipping away at the rep of Pak Fa program for so long, and blowing things so out of proportion, that is has caused people to see things that aren't there. The Pak Fa was originally called the Raptorski. For a reason. The wests first comment about the su 57 upon seeing it was that plasma stealth had failed. Why ? Because of the carful shape of the su 57. Their words.



        There is really nothing that doesn't look stealth about it. Once you get to the bottom of all the alleged issues about the stealth, you'll notice that there's nothing there. This was all just a game of cheap shots. The back doesn't have the hide-away nozzles like the F-22 does. That's all fine an dendy until you notice that the F-35 doesn't have those nozzles either. The su 57 will get the same serrated nozzle setup as the F-35. Then there's the one famous internet picture that shows some of the engine face showing. That's great until you realize that the YF-23 has the same offset intake, non true S duct setup either, and has a little engine showing. Same deal with the Boeing X-32. There was some real doozies like the unpainted engine coweling. That was a serious critique until they got painted.
        Last edited by KGB; 10th July 2018, 05:05.

        Comment


          #64
          @KGB


          You are right about Su-57 it is VLO design, and if it isn't why would Russians bother with stealth nozzles for example?

          But you still are trying to present F-23 same as Su-57, it isn't. What you don't get is F-23 intake design is bent in two planes, first bend is in horizontal plane, second bend is in vertical plane,because engines are above intakes.
          Su-57 engines are in same level with intakes, what confuse people is shorter nose wheel so Su-57 look like it have engines above intakes.

          One more thing F-23 intake would be different then one on YF-23 it would have DSI bump which hide small part on engine which can be seen. F-23 intake design is brilliant solution because it doesn't need long S-duct intake but hide engine very well.

          Comment


            #65
            Ah man I am afraid I might rekindle an old fire causing arguements to explode again which depends how many critics are in this thread because my statements and questions might not be to their liking.

            I am bringing up this old catalog again. Pdf page 16 https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c...0b3fb41e86.pdf

            Rostec's 2014 english pdf book on google pg 63 stated their project was complete and that the GaN modules were already created for tarantula, khlibiny, Himalayas and Krasukha systems than feb 2015 this catalog states that GaAS and GaN modules are already present on their active phased array antenna EW equipment. So these modules are using ceremic substrates and film technology which helped reduced EW hardware costs 5 to 15 times. However the FGA-35(3d) has used the same ceramic substrates and film technology they are using on their EW modules. The point that I am heading torwards is since they had GaN present on their newest EW systems and Guskov also stated that this same technology will also be put on the latest mig-35 in production. What are the chances that the mig-35 would be using a GaN radar?

            Guskov in an interview from a ato.ru article source was asked would a similiar based LTCC radar platform be on an SU-57 he stated no but we have plans.2013 production of LTCC modules began, late 2014-2015 EW systems were present with these GaN LTCC modules. October 2014 http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ew-system.html the new EW system acts like a smart skin. Guskov stated in nov 2012 that these LTCC modules will make a smart skin radar. Even though this says defense aerospace its says its got its source from rostec the same company that stated they already created the GaN modules for the mentioned EW systems. So since Guskov said that LTCC modules can do this for a radar to function like a smart skin. niip catalog stated they have GaN modules(based on ceramic substrates and film tech similiar to the fga-35(3d) which is LTCC) in feb 2015 present on their current EW systems. Rostec on the both late 2014 sources says GaN modules are implemented on Himalayas, Himalayas acts as a smart skin for the SU-57. So this basically means Himalayas is using LTCC modules which happen to be GaN. Because 1. GaN mmics were created for himalayas as stated by rostec in 2014. 2. feb 2015 states they already have present GaN MMICs based off of LTCC. 3. Himalayas is a smart skin EW system based off of LTCC GaN modules. 4. Guskov states LTCC is the way to a smart skin radar. From the looks of all this it seems they have already created GaN LTCC modules for the Himalayas, said in 2015 that they are already present on their EW systems, LTCC modules helped them create smart skins for their aircraft......The reason why I said I will cause arguements on this thread is that GaN UHF modules like the one implemented on the SU-57 have yet to be tested in 2020 for as NGJ for the F-35 and EA-18 Growler. While the SU-57 from these sources have shown that they already have a present GaN UHF on them since late 2014. Pg 19 in pdf states of that niip catalog of ROFAR having smart skin, weight and efficiency similiar to the GaN EW systems they talked about to be implemented in the 2020s. F/XX 6th gen aircraft speaks of having smart skins as well. So he who has a smart skin has either a GaN radar or EW system at this rate since they are small enough to be on the entire body of the aircraft?

            KRET speaks of krasukha-4 jamming in the 300km which utilizes GaN MMICs as already stated by rostec 2014 eng book pdf. Krasukha-20 having a 700km jamming range for AWACs, Very new A-100 system to be introduced by 2020. Rychag-AV jamming 700km not counting the newer version they are creating. Peregrine falcoln 100km jammer for drones, Murmansk-Bn etc etc. So many brand new EW systems which makes me guess the production is going high speed since 2013. Same organization that made the GaN MMICs for the Himalayas definetly has more than enough GaN MMIC for just 12 aircraft in regards to one of their GaN systems with even better brand new systems with more powerful jamming ranges than the Krasukha-4. Their issues for ROFAR is making it optimal as they say. PG-20 of pdf states they have AESA radars working 1-18Ghz ultrabroadband(However KRET was boasting about 1hz-100ghz for ROFAR and obviously being too close to either 1hz and 100ghz will not work well, But the KRET official did say for the mig-41 it used UHF). While most GaAS modules like the F-22s works at a 8-12 Ghz range. I believe someone argued that GaN modules on aircrafts from another forum stated that they have a more broadband frequency than GaAS T/R modules is that statement by any means correct?
            Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th July 2018, 09:15.

            Comment


              #66
              @XB-70:
              Thanks, that is quite reasonable and the Doom example very telling . Military electronics is not like consumer market due to many reasons among them requirements about robustness and reliability / system stability, with the testing duration of a military system, electronics of a fighter are going to be old already at the time of entering operation... Then you have architecture and programming issues, where processors with slightly older technological process can still be optimized for a given set of tasks and code writen and compiled in such a way to be perfectly apt in the end. I don't know how people can say an Elbrus processor is worse or better or more optimized for which tasks, or the programming more or less skilfully designed than that of a F-35 so lightly from home. These are clearly insider issues and even then, many of them are not necessarily critical to military capacity for a concrete mission.

              Also agree your comment on growing capacity for the avionics of newest fighters, very important too.

              @KGB:
              I don't completely agree that stealth is the only reason for the Su-57. The T-10 platform is 40 years old, even when it is still a very good one, at some time you need to go back to the drawing board because technologies have advanced and there are some things you cannot effectively update anymore. Not that this happens very often considering the extra effort of a completely new design, but it happens in the end. Russia was also in need of reactivation of the aerospace industry and the PAK-FA program had this clear goal. Some aspects where PAK-FA is a step forward compared to T-10:

              > Updated aero, with such features that can be seen in plain sight like increased wing area and sweep angle, introduction of LEVCONS, heavy reduction of the tail size. This allows for increased capabilities in terms of manoeuvrability and supersonic flight.
              > Inclusion of weapon bays allows not only for LO but also for low drag carriage of weapons. This is very relevant for range
              > Important size reduction compared to T-10. Nose and other electronic bays reduced and adapted to new technologies
              > Notable increase in capture area of the intakes
              > Newly designed structure based in composites
              > Completely new design tools and methods

              If you want to implement all this in a T-10 and get an optimized product and not some botched work, it is clear that it compensates to start from zero and include a certain degree of LO. And include all what you see interesting from other designs or that can be improved from previous efforts, as it can be seen in the T-50 in form of influences from T-10, F-22 and YF-23.

              You as a follower of Russian military will know that they don't believe in stealth being a silver bullet against advanced militaries and rather a tactical resource and a tool for power projection. Advanced IADs have so many radars on so many frequencies illuminating targets from so many angles that the chances of escaping them are very slim, and that not considering IR detection, multistatic radars, early warning and OTH, human intelligence, satellite surveillance etc etc. They are definitely not going to sacrifice everything for the sake of VLO characteristics in which they don't even believe to start with. Having said that, the T-50 as seen until now is definitely optimized for frontal LO and probably also to be reasonably stealth from the rear aspect with the second stage engines. This makes sense for air superiority and strike roles but together with that and even more importantly, the aircraft can supercruise and has very long legs and big payload. Focus of Russian military is still self defence and therefore they have different approaches than US

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                Ah man I am afraid I might rekindle an old fire causing arguements to explode again which depends how many critics are in this thread because my statements and questions might not be to their liking.
                I don't want to be mean but to be frank, your questions and statements aren't really to anyone liking, because either you don't really understand what you wrote or you are being disingenuous because your documents doesn't say what you you claimed they do.Then the lack of citation and extreme JSR like attitude doesn't help either.

                I am bringing up this old catalog again. Pdf page 16 https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c...0b3fb41e86.pdf

                Rostec's 2014 english pdf book on google pg 63 stated their project was complete and that the GaN modules were already created for tarantula, khlibiny, Himalayas and Krasukha systems than feb 2015 this catalog states that GaAS and GaN modules are already present on their active phased array antenna EW equipment.
                They didn't, come on, why are you lying? last time you cite the document it was about some experimental UHF GaN T/r modules
                So these modules are using ceremic substrates and film technology which helped reduced EW hardware costs 5 to 15 times. However the FGA-35(3d) has used the same ceramic substrates and film technology they are using on their EW modules. The point that I am heading torwards is since they had GaN present on their newest EW systems and Guskov also stated that this same technology will also be put on the latest mig-35 in production. What are the chances that the mig-35 would be using a GaN radar?

                Guskov in an interview from a ato.ru article source was asked would a similiar based LTCC radar platform be on an SU-57 he stated no but we have plans.2013 production of LTCC modules began, late 2014-2015 EW systems were present with these GaN LTCC modules. October 2014 http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ew-system.html the new EW system acts like a smart skin. Guskov stated in nov 2012 that these LTCC modules will make a smart skin radar. Even though this says defense aerospace its says its got its source from rostec the same company that stated they already created the GaN modules for the mentioned EW systems. So since Guskov said that LTCC modules can do this for a radar to function like a smart skin.
                niip catalog stated they have GaN modules(based on ceramic substrates and film tech similiar to the fga-35(3d) which is LTCC) in feb 2015 present on their current EW systems
                Those are very big leap of faith and still lacking in links


                . Rostec on the both late 2014 sources says GaN modules are implemented on Himalayas, Himalayas acts as a smart skin for the SU-57. So this basically means Himalayas is using LTCC modules which happen to be GaN.
                Iam quite certain that they didn't said that and beside, GaN isn't a requirement to have smart skin




                The reason why I said I will cause arguements on this thread is that GaN UHF modules like the one implemented on the SU-57 have yet to be tested in 2020 for as NGJ for the F-35 and EA-18 Growler. While the SU-57 from these sources have shown that they already have a present GaN UHF on them since late 2014.
                You are making the assumption that experimental t/r modules will be used immediately on production line


                Pg 19 in pdf states of that niip catalog of ROFAR having smart skin, weight and efficiency similiar to the GaN EW systems they talked about to be implemented in the 2020s.
                ROFAR is a different thing

                KRET speaks of krasukha-4 jamming in the 300km which utilizes GaN MMICs as already stated by rostec 2014 eng book pdf. Krasukha-20 having a 700km jamming range for AWACs, Very new A-100 system to be introduced by 2020. Rychag-AV jamming 700km not counting the newer version they are creating. Peregrine falcoln 100km jammer for drones, Murmansk-Bn etc etc.
                I don't know where you pull these numbers from but jamming distance isn't a fixed value.

                Their issues for ROFAR is making it optimal as they say. PG-20 of pdf states they have AESA radars working 1-18Ghz ultrabroadband(However KRET was boasting about 1hz-100ghz for ROFAR and obviously being too close to either 1hz and 100ghz will not work well, But the KRET official did say for the mig-41 it used UHF). While most GaAS modules like the F-22s works at a 8-12 Ghz range.
                ROFAR is pretty much therotical at the moment, beside, fire control radar operate in 8-12 Ghz range because it give you a good balance between accuracy and atmospheric attenuation, and you wouldn't want a radar that operate from 1hz and 100ghz because it affects others things like directivity, grating lobes ..etc

                Comment


                  #68
                  Just some thought from a neutral (as regard SU-57 vs F22) observer.

                  I think SU-57 design is brillant and looks very capable to me, it should match or exceeds the F22 in aerodynamics and perhaps kinetics with the new engines.

                  However I am not completely convinced by SU-57 stealth. The overall design is brillant but the manufacturing looks dated compared to F22 and F35 (riveting/apparent metal, canopy etc etc).

                  It seems to me that the SU-57 is some kind of a "budget 5th gen fighter" with some key attributes but without overinvesting in stealth or sensors. A more cost efficient approach than the west.

                  Like a Dacia Duster which is a lot of a car for the price in its own category to attempt a comparison.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    ...and you wouldn't want a radar that operate from 1hz and 100ghz...
                    Why wouldn't you? I believe you misunderstand how fire control radars work. They don't operate *simultaneously* throughout a 8-12 GHz range. Rather they have that bandwidth and *can* operate within that band on demand. Basically, they operate within a 10-20MHz band that hops around randomly throughout their bandwidth. It's this hopping ability that allows for low probability of intercept.

                    A photonics radar would work the exact same. It is not simultaneously scanning the entire 1-100GHz band. It is operating in a 10-20MHz band that can randomly hop throughout that band. You do want this! It takes low probability of intercept to the next level and you can run an algorithm to periodically scan near the high 100GHz region of its bandwidth to find stealth aircraft while spending most time in in the 8-12 GHz region where there is less atmospheric absorption.

                    But I do agree that the technology is a long way off.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by XB-70
                      When you've obtained multiple bearings to a signal source from known locations over a short period of time then you have located the origin of the source - in real time to a small region of uncertainty.
                      Who knows the means of locating the F-22's or whether it was real time or after analysis of mission data, it's largely irrelavent. For all we know they could have rolled a UHF radar up to the test area to track the F-22's movements and reactions.... simple fact is, in multiple translations on translation tools, we get this....

                      "We were probably able to clarify a number of possible and accompanying data on the ability of the F-22 and F-35 to detect our aircraft in the short-term stay of our Su-57s in Syria in February this year - telemetry provided a significant reason for their improvement," - said V.Gutenev.

                      to detect our aircraft - Unambiguous, nothing lost in translation
                      telemetry provided a significant reason for their improvement - Same, also specific

                      Then we get the full treatment in this thread of the typical deny, deny, discredit the source, deny, try to interpret it in 200 completely unrelated ways, deny, discredit...etc by the local bots. Enough to convince me it's right on the money and worthy of tipping to defence media to see if they want to run it.

                      I've been saying it for a long time, "stealth" is not "just stealth". There's varying degrees of observability between LO to true VLO. The question of which aircraft would more often prevail in an encounter comes down to exploitation of the radar max range equation. If aircraft A has a lower RCS from operationally relevant angles (noticed some of the uneducated in the last thread were talking about the RCS of the very bottom of the aircraft... clueless) and a better radar than aircraft B then more often than not it's going to get the first shot in an encounter, immediately putting the opponent on the defensive where their SA and low RCS quickly disappear.

                      At a certain point in stealth design, it comes down to tiny details to get to actual VLO. Turning of screws to a particular angle to prevent the most minute amount of specular return, removal of a canopy frame causing surface discontinuity diffraction, stealth shaping of the inside of the cockpit (as well as a small jammer built "inside" the cockpit at a concentration point), extreme sharpening of all leading edges, closing of airgaps, removal of cavities between the airframe and intakes, mm perfect laser directed application of ram strips to the skin to consistently achieve the highest level of effectiveness.

                      Meanwhile....

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	canopy.png
Views:	1
Size:	169.7 KB
ID:	3681016

                      1 - surface discontinuity, corner reflector - causes both specular and diffraction return to source radar ... forget the ram, a recent video on Su-57 canopy treatment only stated a 60% reduction in RCS from the metalized treatment
                      2 - surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft's axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
                      3 - surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft's axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
                      4 - HUD (inside) - specular return through canopy

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	cavities.png
Views:	1
Size:	221.0 KB
ID:	3681013

                      1 - cavity - causes resonance
                      2 - cavity - causes resonance
                      3 - cyclindrical pitots - massive specular return
                      4 - large levcon cavity - causes resonance

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	leading edge.png
Views:	1
Size:	471.1 KB
ID:	3681014

                      1 - cavity, surface discontinuity - causes diffraction and resonance - not blended with airframe
                      2 - no sawtoothing and pinching of control surface edge, cavity - causes resonance
                      3 - fat, rounded leading edges - causes high specular return compared to extremely sharp (1mm diameter) leading edges
                      4 - cavity - causes resonance

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	massive discontinuity.png
Views:	1
Size:	143.3 KB
ID:	3681015

                      1 - Multiple sources of specular and surface discontinuity return - resonance depending on wavelength
                      2 - massive surface discontinuity almost at normal to axis - the gaps in these areas are quite large, inches in size

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	hmmm.png
Views:	1
Size:	734.5 KB
ID:	3681017

                      Almost forgot... radar disco ball/infrared headlamp
                      Last edited by ActionJackson; 10th July 2018, 22:44.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        However I am not completely convinced by SU-57 stealth. The overall design is brillant but the manufacturing looks dated compared to F22 and F35 (riveting/apparent metal, canopy etc etc).
                        where people got this idea that stealth is up to them I will never know. Its just laughably ridiculous. The rivits you see are a prototype. Try and think rationally.

                        So. You are at an airshow, there's a J-20, F-35 and su 57 parked in a line. You walk by with your family. Are you going to tell your wife, "that one is stealth, that one is stealth, but that one is not" ? Lol

                        It is very doubtful that the su 57 is a fake stealth jet or that Russia didn't know how to make a stealth jet so they gave up half way instead of continuing development. That is the bill of goods that propagandists are trying to sell you.

                        For the new 5th gen EU fighter coming up , is the stealth subject to your inspection too ?
                        Last edited by KGB; 10th July 2018, 13:42.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Actionjackson is still hanging onto his story. He thinks that the su 57 got lit up by an F-22 in Syria And the US had nothing to say about it.

                          If this happened, it would be the other way around. The US would be saying it, and Russia would be denying it.

                          There is no operational US F-35's deployed to Syria.

                          There's not much else to say about this. The story sufficiently destroys it's own credibility.

                          It looks like the canopy has resurfaced as their go-to red herring. Remember. In his lingo and pics, he is trying to convince you that the su 57 is one of these imaginary details away from being a 4th gen aircraft. Just like Tyler Rogoway said.

                          And its funny that he brought up the levcon. Which unlike the J-20, serves as a canard except it is neatly flush with the wings, at the ideal angle. The levcon also allows the virticle stabilizers to be markedly smaller. Which lowers the RCS, especially compared to the F-22 Raptor. Which has these rigid billboard sized virticle stabilizers. Yet the levcon gets trotted out as some proof that Sukhoi was more interested in manuverability. Umm no.

                          And no su 57 hit piece would be complete without "the pic". The one famous pic showing some engine face. The pic also gives the illusion that you are looking straight at the aircraft. When you are not. Strange how there is just one. Let's just pretend that the YF-23 and X-32 didn't have engine face showing.
                          Last edited by KGB; 10th July 2018, 15:48.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            @ActionJackson:

                            Why do you think Sukhoi would possibly commit such (in your opinion) obvious capital sins against radar LO when designing a stealth fighter? Either: a) they are idiots and don't know the basic issues you are pointing out b) the program is a farce c) they do this on purpose and have their reasons for it, whether you know them or not. Considering the Russians are the fathers of PTD and Sukhoi engineers the best of the best in their country, a) is not likely. And you know it because most probably you are an engineer too. After so many years and money invested, b) not likely to me, but who knows. I wonder: do you even consider c) being a reasonable possibility?

                            There are many obvious issues with the design "failures" you comment above, and I am not even by far very knowledgeable in the issue or going into the details:
                            > "Failures" that can be attributed to prototype condition of the T-50 models seen until now and where stating that serial models will be identical is simply imprudent. I.e. pitot tubes, rivets etc
                            > Air gaps exactly the same as present in supposedly ultra VLO models as the F-22 (intakes) or illumination of engine compressor (like YF-23)
                            > Presence of shaping in places you point as resonant cavities (LEVCON)
                            > Possibility of impedance matching material used in air gaps and leading edges

                            Another question: what are the operational conditions where you are considering these planes will be used? Russian AF is mainly defensive in nature as said many times. Therefore, main focus is operating in their territory or close to it. That means, with supporting assets. Do you think the PAK-FA would operate alone against F-22 as a norm? Do you think F-22s can penetrate Russian IAD undetected and unharmed, really? How would that work if I may ask against multiband, multilayered radars some of them perfectly capable of detecting stealth planes at great distances and long range SAM/AAM with active radar or IR seekers?

                            In summary, why to make such an issue about a feature that is no panacea? If VLO was what it is said to be, what is the problem with F-35s operating close to S-400 in Turkey? What better occasion than that (considering it is a export version of S-400 and therefore not even comparable to the domestic version) to destroy Russian export market by proving their inability to beat your stealth technology? Or even better, gather so much needed signatures from the S-400 and use them for your threat data bases? Instead, unhinged excuses are being used to try avoid, at all costs, that Turkey buys both systems. Maybe you have a good, reasonable and articulated explanation, for me this simply stinks of fear.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                              Ah man I am afraid I might rekindle an old fire causing arguements to explode again which depends how many critics are in this thread because my statements and questions might not be to their liking.

                              I am bringing up this old catalog again...........
                              You didn't bring that up again because you want to learn the answer or to see others's opinions, you brought that up again because you want to see confirmation of your beliefs. That won't happen unfortunately, not until you change your perspective.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                "I don't want to be mean but to be frank, your questions and statements aren't really to anyone liking, because either you don't really understand what you wrote or you are being disingenuous because your documents doesn't say what you you claimed they do.Then the lack of citation and extreme JSR like attitude doesn't help either."

                                Denial, not reading anything that was actually cited, calling something experimental when said to be completed and another source later state presently used on EW equipment.......These are usually the symptoms I have come across from patients that don't like something being better than something they like

                                "They didn't, come on, why are you lying? last time you cite the document it was about some experimental UHF GaN T/r modules "

                                https://rostec.ru/upload/iblock/749/...0c077564e8.pdf page 63 so again why did they say they have created the modules and that it would be used as advanced components for weapons? It clearly states that

                                "Those are very big leap of faith and still lacking in links"

                                Literally stated the model numbers of the 4 different modules as being GaN modules, Feb 2015 stated they clearly have GaN present on their AESA antennas on the catalog? How is it this hard to put the 2 together?

                                "Iam quite certain that they didn't said that and beside, GaN isn't a requirement to have smart skin"

                                It was mentioned on the rostec 2014 pdf that that the GaN modules were created for the himalayas and it was mentioned that the Himalayas EW was to be used as a smart skin. Since GaN is by default smaller than GaAS modules this is a hint or indication it most likely is. Can you give a source where GaAS modules can be smaller than GaN or GaAS modules being able to fit throughout of the body of an aircraft?

                                "You are making the assumption that experimental t/r modules will be used immediately on production line "

                                I think I should have posted the rostec 2014 pdf book to begin with besides talking about it. Because the book clearly stated the project was completed, and that the modules would be used. Though I dont know why you consider them experimental t/r modules since they are completed and the fact that the modules were stated to be present on their EW systems from the Niip catalog.

                                "ROFAR is a different thing" I am talking about the same LTCC modules with the same reduction of the in size and efficiency being exactly the same as the LTCC modules of their EW equipment that they have currently stated as GaN.

                                "I don't know where you pull these numbers from but jamming distance isn't a fixed value." Than just look at the estimated claims.

                                "ROFAR is pretty much therotical at the moment, beside, fire control radar operate in 8-12 Ghz range because it give you a good balance between accuracy and atmospheric attenuation, and you wouldn't want a radar that operate from 1hz and 100ghz because it affects others things like directivity, grating lobes ..etc "

                                That does not really help answer if one person's claim about GaN having a broader band frequency than GaAS. I was not asking about 8-12 ghz being a good balance I was asking if it was true that for aircraft modules does GaN have a broader frequency than GaAS? Its more of a yes or no answer with an explanation if you have one? As the niip catalog stated they have 1ghz-18ghz AESA radars. And you seem to be already mentioning about the effects from 1hz to 100ghz which I already mentioned and agreed as well will be impractical. Which is why I stated a KRET official giving an example using a UHF signal.

                                ""We tested the ability of F-22 and F-35 to detect our Su-57s - telemetry showed significant reason for their (Su-57's) improvement" - V.Gutenev."

                                might as well troll back by putting, "Apparently along with the Rafale, one aircraft which proved to be a real threat for the F-22 is the Eurofighter Typhoon: during the 2012 Red Flag-Alaska, the German Eurofighters not only held their own, but reportedly achieved several kills on the Raptors. " every time I respond.
                                Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th July 2018, 16:32.

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  Originally posted by XB-70
                                  Why wouldn't you? I believe you misunderstand how fire control radars work. They don't operate *simultaneously* throughout a 8-12 GHz range.
                                  That isn't what I am talking about, of course I know simultaneous bandwidth of radar is much narrower than their total operating bandwidth.
                                  There are a few issue with very wide bandwidth radar:
                                  *Directivity: your fire control radar need to be accurate, to be accurate its beam width need to be narrow. To have a narrow beam width, the aperture size need to be big relative to the wavelength of the frequency you use. So what sufficient for 10 GHz is way too small for 1Ghz
                                  Click image for larger version

Name:	rW5cFDJl.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	33.1 KB
ID:	3681022
                                  *Elements spacing: there is a limit for electronic scanned array on how far/close apart your T/R modules can be, this distance is limited by operating wavelength.
                                  Click image for larger version

Name:	grating-lobes.png
Views:	1
Size:	42.5 KB
ID:	3681023Click image for larger version

Name:	grating-lobes-and-elements-spacing1.png
Views:	1
Size:	156.8 KB
ID:	3681024

                                  Comment


                                    #77
                                    Sorry at @mig-31bm but your answer makes me want to raise another question.

                                    http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...p?id=21183&t=1

                                    Just to be sure about the 8-12ghz range there are certain frequencies below that that have a better RCS detection at different angles especially accounting for the front. And that these are still used for fire control frequencies for tracking targets So do you know why exactly they had 8-12 Ghz band t/r modules before but have broadened that bandwidth to a bigger range for their newer AESA modules. Why is this organization KRET not being led by you? So since you are implying a narrow band has a higher gain in detection than a broaderband frequency band. Can you narrow your broadband T/R modules for a higher gain in a radar?

                                    I don't think this organization would have created 1-18ghz AESA radars for nothing as stated in that NIIP catalog. Because it would not make sense for them to weaken their X-band range. Because I agree with you that broadband is not better than narrow band in detection. So I am assuming because they have this broad range for their transceivers can they allow their transceivers to either focus on lets say 8-12 GHZ like the F-22 or 1-4 GHZ within that 1-18ghz range?
                                    Last edited by panzerfeist1; 10th July 2018, 18:00.

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      might as well troll back by putting, "Apparently along with the Rafale, one aircraft which proved to be a real threat for the F-22 is the Eurofighter Typhoon: during the 2012 Red Flag-Alaska, the German Eurofighters not only held their own, but reportedly achieved several kills on the Raptors. " every time I respond.
                                      For Actionjackson, might as well add that according to US officials, the derated Indian build and piloted su 30 could do every aerial maneuver that the F-22 could.

                                      1 - surface discontinuity, corner reflector - causes both specular and diffraction return to source radar ... forget the ram, a recent video on Su-57 canopy treatment only stated a 60% reduction in RCS from the metalized treatment
                                      2 - surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft's axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
                                      3 - surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft's axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
                                      4 - HUD (inside) - specular return through canopy

                                      1 - cavity - causes resonance
                                      2 - cavity - causes resonance
                                      3 - cyclindrical pitots - massive specular return
                                      4 - large levcon cavity - causes resonance
                                      I wasn't sure if this was actual trolling (ie he doesn't believe it himself) or not. But this set removes all doubt.
                                      Last edited by KGB; 10th July 2018, 18:29.

                                      Comment


                                        #79
                                        @KGB

                                        What US officials?

                                        @ActionJackson

                                        http://amunt.tumblr.com/image/46877242821

                                        Huge surface discontinuity but no one doesn't say it isn't stealth

                                        Intake photo of Su-57 could be photo shop, I found this:
                                        http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...c8e1&mode=view

                                        BTW I don't see why you point out exposed fan blades when radar blocker is mentioned so many times?
                                        Last edited by Krivakapa; 10th July 2018, 18:45.

                                        Comment


                                          #80
                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          Denial, not reading anything that was actually cited, calling something experimental when said to be completed and another source later state presently used on EW equipment.......These are usually the symptoms I have come across from patients that don't like something being better than something they like
                                          No, it more like you don't have a reasonable or logical argument so you can't convince others to agree with what you want to believe.



                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          https://rostec.ru/upload/iblock/749/...0c077564e8.pdf page 63 so again why did they say they have created the modules and that it would be used as advanced components for weapons? It clearly states that
                                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20180710-235905.png
Views:	1
Size:	760.8 KB
ID:	3681025
                                          I see nothing wrong with their statement, they created some GaN UHF modules and said those modules Will Soon be used in Military applications. That totally fine. On the other hand you said "their project was complete and that the GaN modules were already created for tarantula, khlibiny, Himalayas and Krasukha systems than feb 2015 this catalog states that GaAS and GaN modules are already present on their active phased array antenna EW equipment." basically you implied that current variation Himalayas already uses GaN module while the source stated no such thing. Finished development of new technologies that can be used in future upgrades is one thing, transferring those technologies directly to current pre-planned production chain is another. You are equivalent to someone who think F-16 block 60/70 has TVC because of Vista program, or AIM-120D uses ram jet because of FMRAAM.



                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          Literally stated the model numbers of the 4 different modules as being GaN modules, Feb 2015 stated they clearly have GaN present on their AESA antennas on the catalog? How is it this hard to put the 2 together?
                                          I haven't see the Feb 2015 edition and to be honest, it kinda hard for us to trust your words. Either way, unless they specifically said in Feb 2015 that Himalayas has Gan modules, I don't see how can you make the jump


                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          It was mentioned on the rostec 2014 pdf that that the GaN modules were created for the himalayas
                                          This is you playing with word to make your point sound more "correct", these UHF modules was not created for Himalayas. As stated in rostec, they are part of development project, and they will reduce dimensions of Khibiny-M, khrasnuka-4, Tarantul and Himalayas. This is quite different from something designed only for Himalayas, because only if these modules are made only for Himalayas then you could have made the jump you did in previous paragraph

                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          and it was mentioned that the Himalayas EW was to be used as a smart skin. Since GaN is by default smaller than GaAS modules this is a hint or indication it most likely is. Can you give a source where GaAS modules can be smaller than GaN or GaAS modules being able to fit throughout of the body of an aircraft?
                                          This is some very big leap of faith again for no reason. "Smart skin" can mean anything from dedicated RWR to dedicated ESM, they don't have to fully covered the airplane and PAK-FA won't be cover fully in transmitter either. Either way, you don't need GaN to have "smart skin", iam pretty sure they called Spectra and Barracuda "smart skin" sometimes even though, they don't use Gan at the moment, nor do they fully cover the aircraft.


                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          I think I should have posted the rostec 2014 pdf book to begin with besides talking about it. Because the book clearly stated the project was completed, and that the modules would be used. Though I dont know why you consider them experimental t/r modules since they are completed and the fact that the modules were stated to be present on their EW systems from the Niip catalog.
                                          Same way I consider T-3, Hyfly to be experimental. It sort of a technology demonstrator.


                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          I am talking about the same LTCC modules with the same reduction of the in size and efficiency being exactly the same as the LTCC modules of their EW equipment that they have currently stated as GaN.
                                          Citation needed, you aren't really helping your case here when you making many outstanding claim but doesn't provide sources for us to double check. Instead of writing your theory, it is better to give the links first
                                          I don't think you can estimate the efficiency and beside when you talked about "reduction in size" what exactly are you comparing it to....????? . It sounds to us that you saw they written "new modules X is 50% smaller than the old one" then you read somewhere that GaN modules is half as big then you leap to the conclusion that module X is GaN based

                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          Than just look at the estimated claims.
                                          You didn't give citation for any of the numbers you written and beside they are meaningless without context, like saying your eye can detect things from several billions km, technically that true when you look at stars, but it does not help us estimates how good your eye sight is.

                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1
                                          As the niip catalog stated they have 1ghz-18ghz AESA radars.
                                          Where did they said that

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X