Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718 LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 521

Thread: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

  1. #451
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    748
    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.

  2. #452
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    98
    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 at 08:05.

  3. #453
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    748
    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.

  4. #454
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    98
    " 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 at 08:36.

  5. #455
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    895
    Quote 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


    Quote 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

    Quote 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.

  6. #456
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,011
    @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.

  7. #457
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    98
    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 at 09:13.

  8. #458
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,357
    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"

  9. #459
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    895
    I called it a theory, because its not proven to work yet, its based off an idea of researchers. Yes or no?
    No

    Quote 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 at 10:23.

  10. #460
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    98
    "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 at 10:37.

  11. #461
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by panzerfeist1
    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. 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.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
    Others reasons apart from pathetic size? such as frequency, cooling ? or that first and foremost it is a sensor for active hard kill and will need to operate with extremely high PRF while a long range radar will use medium-low PRF?

    Quote Originally Posted by panzerfeist1
    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.
    SNR-125 chart was there already, asking for a chart isn't bias, what bias is your obvious opposite attitude when you receive information about F-117 rcs and Afghanit .Why didn't you ask yourself "Is there a legitimate source on the Afghanit radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in? Or what the Afghanit itself can read in noise level and what range it receives that noise?".

  12. #462
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerfeist
    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.
    Are there some site with this kind of information? i think 28 kms are many kms for a litle radar of a missile. Maybe if missile is very big with a big radome it could be and RCS of the target is very big too. With normal size BVR missile and rcs of the target around 1 m2, i dont think it can track it around 28 kms...

    Irbis E PESA radar from Su-35 S is one of the best russian radars out there, it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search. This is a very big radar inside a big radome. I do not see Armata radar size can track from 100 kms comparing size of the radar.
    http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/...esign-features

    It is better wait for official figure from manufacture company.
    Last edited by RALL; 10th August 2018 at 11:53.

  13. #463
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,295
    Irbis E PESA radar from Su-35 S is one of the best russian radars out there, it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search
    Calculated data of the radar "Irbis":
    maximum range of detection of air targets - 454 km
    light fighter without external weapons, RCS = 1 m2 - 304 km
    fighter F-22, RCS = 0.3 m2 - 225 km

  14. #464
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay
    Calculated data of the radar "Irbis":
    maximum range of detection of air targets - 454 km
    light fighter without external weapons, RCS = 1 m2 - 304 km
    fighter F-22, RCS = 0.3 m2 - 225 km
    Yes, but it is not data in normal search.

    http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/...esign-features

    The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km.


    Data you attached (454 km) is for maximum range on a narrower field of view and maximum power not on a normal search. So for a normal search will be around 200 kms.

    And other data from Tikhomorov.


    https://web.archive.org/web/20170706...ie/rlsu-irbis/

    EPR mode, i think it is maximum power.

    Режим «Воздух-Воздух»:
    - дальность обнаружения целей с ЭПР = 3м2 – 350 км


    So it is clear, for a RCS 3 m2 (typical aerial target) in a normal search radar, track is around 200 kms, as first data from UAC told.

    *******
    RCS F-22 is around 0.0001 m2 not 0.3 m2. Officials have told this. it is not rumours.
    Last edited by RALL; 10th August 2018 at 17:47.

  15. #465
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,295
    RCS F-22 is around 0.0001 m2 not 0.3 m2. Officials have told this. it is not rumours
    These fictions can tell for grandchildren

  16. #466
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,842
    The Irbis-E radar station with rotating phased antenna array designed by the V. Tikhomirov Research Institute of Instrumentation provides for the assured detection and acquisition of typical aerial targets at a range of up to 200 km (up to 170 km against ground background), and in a narrower field of view¬ – up to 350-400 km.
    Those website figures are for export and hasn't been updated for a decade.

  17. #467
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR
    Those website figures are for export and hasn't been updated for a decade.
    These figures are from IRBIS E from website of the manufacture company, and do not talk nothing about export radar, only talk about IRBIS E.

    If these figures was not updated, will be because do not need any update, otherwise company would do it because it is better for them to write better perfomance.

    If you have update numbers from manufacture company, you can attached it. I would happy to see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by paralay
    These fictions can tell for grandchildren
    This is not fiction, this is what officials told.

    And also the most important, if F-22 had a 0,3 m2 RCS could be detected from hundred kms. And it never happened in many exercises where the most important fighters of the west participated. EF-2000, Rafale or F-15 c with 3º generation Aesa could not detected F-22 from so far. So, it is not fiction, it is real numbers.


    This is RAAF’s Chief of Air Force, talking about his experience flying against the F-22 in Red Flag to the Australian parliament....

    http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A"committees%2Fcommjnt%2Ffb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a%2F0002"
    Air Marshal Brown : I think if you have a look around on an F16 sometimes that is not wonderful either. But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is in a current fourth-generation aeroplane.

    The data fusion and the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis. They tend to go down particular paths in the aeroplane, whether it is turn rate performance or acceleration. These are all important factors, but it is a combination of what you have actually got in the jet and the situational awareness that is resident in the cockpit of a fifth-generation aeroplane that makes the fundamental difference.

  18. #468
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,011
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay
    These fictions can tell for grandchildren
    0.3 m2 number is fiction as it contradict with both anechoic chamber measurements and historical account of F-117.
    https://forum.keypublishing.com/show...09#post2453909
    Anechoic chamber measurements of F-117 metal model indicates RCS of -18 dBsm for frontal and tail aspect at frequency range from 400 Mhz-2 Ghz, what happens when you add RAM and raise frequency to 8Ghz?
    In Serbia SNR-125 operates in X-band struggle to detect F-117 from 14 km, that mean F-117 real RCS as observed by SNR-125 was equal or less than -30dBsm (0.001m2).
    P-18 detected F-117 from 23 km, so real F-117 RCS in VHF band was less than - 20dBsm.
    F-22 made decades later by the same company will not be 300 times worse than F-117.

    Quote 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
    According to this source, he was in the command trailer of P-18 radar cabin.
    The fact that the F-117A was downgraded from the third attempt is unquestionable. The first and second attempts to find the target in the air by the Nishan radar were unsuccessful. Sitting in the PRG view point toward the P-18 observation radar at one time on the azimuth 195, I notice three targets, 23 kilometers away. The next circle on the observation radar clearly indicates that the plane is approaching us. I follow him in the next round of the distance is 18 km. The operator of the observation radar P-18, Ljubenkovic's guide through the GGS (voice-of-speech) reports that we have a goal. Obviously we are following the same situation in the air.
    https://www.in4s.net/obaranje-f-117a...e-11/?lang=lat
    It comes with a video as well
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 13th August 2018 at 16:18.

  19. #469
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    76
    Ancic WASN'T in trailer when they had four faint returens at 60-70km distance. He enter later, little before 23km detection. They turn on and off P-18 which is reason for gap between 60-70km and 23km and of course F-117 is stealth which makes things even worse.

    SNR-125 range is 80km (instrumental) and that is probable for Tu-16 size target (because that is what Soviets use as measure standard back then) so that would be 80km for 20m2:
    http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.karte...rte032.en.html
    Last edited by Krivakapa; 13th August 2018 at 18:34.

  20. #470
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    98
    "Others reasons apart from pathetic size? such as frequency, cooling ? or that first and foremost it is a sensor for active hard kill and will need to operate with extremely high PRF while a long range radar will use medium-low PRF?"

    Yes its a sensor for active hard kill. But there is a reason why Trophy and AMAP-APS have a very limited range one is doppler the other LADAR. The T-14 is built to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft missiles to do that you need a good decent firecontrol range to engage aerial targets.

    "SNR-125 chart was there already, asking for a chart isn't bias, what bias is your obvious opposite attitude when you receive information about F-117 rcs and Afghanit"

    Aus airpower? Really and you are getting upset with my source? Where did aus-airpower get that reference from? Even I got bashed before using them as a reference.

    "Is there a legitimate source on the Afghanit radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in?" Paralay gave a helicopter range will it be engaged.
    http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016...atest-mbt.html

    "The tank is equipped with the 26,5–40 GHz Active electronically scanned array radar that has a range of 100 km, which is mainly used by the Active protection system. Up to 40 airborne or 25 ground targets up to 0.3 m in size can be tracked simultaneously. The tracking system provides an automatic firing solution to the destruction of the target, which can be then transferred to either the APS or the main gun control computers.

    I guess not just one source says 100km.

    @Rall

    "Are there some site with this kind of information? i think 28 kms are many kms for a litle radar of a missile. Maybe if missile is very big with a big radome it could be and RCS of the target is very big too. With normal size BVR missile and rcs of the target around 1 m2, i dont think it can track it around 28 kms..."

    GaN mmics are used, no one knows how many though. The source was provided way ba ck on this forum. "aviationweek.com/awin/japan-upgrading-60-f-2s-aam-4-japg-2

    "“The crucial claim was that the AAM-4B could switch to autonomous guidance at a 40% greater range than either of the other two missiles and would similarly outperform what was expected to be the 2009 standard of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder). In a 2010 paper, the ministry attributed the seeker's greater performance to the higher transmitting power available from the AESA.

    The implication is that an F-2 firing AAM-4Bs can stop tracking the target for missile guidance much sooner than an unmodified F-2 can—and officials tell Aviation Week that the key aim of the project is indeed to increase the range at which an F-2 can turn away. “

    And I already gave an example of the 20km range for the R-77 where it relies on its own host radar......Its up to you to believe this or not but I am not forcing anyone on anything based on their beliefs. My own opinion is that there are more modules on the afghanit than there is one a missile. Technology progresses fast. I believe Japan had to make a 20% size reduction but there newer modules would offer the same range or better range performance since some have to be removed for JNAAMs to fit on the F-35.

    "it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search. This is a very big radar inside a big radome." - Oh please the Ka-52 Katran can spot a 5m2 target at 200kms. No way the SU-35 is on par with their helis.



    As everyone talking about the F-22 RCS? Did Noshir Gowadia try to sell any B-2 secrets to Russia? My opinion on who has better stealth material might definitely change depending if the 2018 army expo will expose an invisible Helmet where the US army in 2015 claimed was impossible. Only time will tell but I will not get my hopes up until the damn helmet is shown.

  21. #471
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    131
    @RALL:
    The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest in overstating the capacity of their armament?

    As to those Red Flags:

    > What were the vectors of approach of the F-22 to the F-15D? Where they outside of the angular radar coverage of the later? It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary's radar range is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability and also the reason why new fighters are including AESA side radar arrays or frontal ones on an orientable dish.
    > Did the F-22s activate their radars? If yes, then the RWR on the F-15Ds suck. If not and they were guided by AWACs, did the red air have the same support? Did they have low frequency radars or other means that would realistically represent the Russian assets on the European front (OTH, PCL, multi-band overlapping radars, advanced passive detectors, IRST, human intelligence etc? Or where they just blind waiting to receive an incoming missile alert?

    All these considerations would be important to understand the value of those statements you know...
    Last edited by LMFS; 13th August 2018 at 23:33.

  22. #472
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by LMFS
    @RALL:
    The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest on overstating the capacity of their armament?

    As to those Red Flags:

    > What were the vectors of approach of the F-22 to the F-15D? Where they outside of the angular radar coverage of the later? It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary's radar coverage is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability and also the reason why new fighters are including AESA side radar arrays or frontal ones on an orientable dish.
    > Did the F-22s activate their radars? If yes, then the RWR on the F-15Ds suck. If not and they were guided by AWACs, did the red air have the same support? Did they have low frequency radars or other means that would realistically represent the Russian assets on the European front (OTH, PCL, multi-band overlapping radars, advanced passive detectors, IRST, human intelligence etc? Or where they just blind waiting to receive an incoming missile alert?

    All these considerations would be important to understand the value of those statements you know...
    Hi LMFS.

    I am agree, a given value of RCS is for a radar frequency "X" and for a given angle "Y". So, for each angle we will have usually different RCS...everybody writes here understand this.

    USAF officials told this..

    The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball.

    And the link.

    https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/ht.../20051125.aspx

    It is very clear, and from this everbody understand F-22 RCS is around 0,0001 m2 for frecuencies used in fire control radars. We can debate if that number is only for the frontal aspect of the airplane or it is the average RCS.

    But it is clear that at least in critical angles such as the frontal, this aircraft has acquired an RCS no greater than 0.0001 m2.

    The chief designer of the Su-57 will be an expert talking about the Su-57, and we must to read with attention things he tells about the aircraft, but he does not know "nothing" about the F-22 or the F-35. it is from Usaf officials or people from Lockheed Martin or Northrop who you need read for to know about american stealth fighters and bombers. They have decades designing, manufacturing, and flying these airplanes.


    **********

    Of course we do not know how was exactly on red flags exercises, but you need think. If somebody would have detected to some F-22 or F-35 from 100-200 kms, you would know this on next minute. It would be world news.

    Other example.


    https://www.military.com/daily-news/...1075741&rank=6

    Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh on Tuesday sketched out a dramatic tale of a lone F-22 Raptor chasing off Iranian fighter jets over the Arabian Gulf


    Welsh then displayed a picture of Sutterfield before a large audience of his fellow service members at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition on Tuesday.

    "This is the guy that warned them off," he said. "He flew under their aircraft to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home.'"

    The successful performance of the F-22 comes after the Air Force was forced to repeatedly halt F-22 flights because F-22 pilots repeatedly reported blacking out from problems breathing.

  23. #473
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Krivakapa
    Ancic WASN'T in trailer when they had four faint returens at 60-70km distance. He enter later, little before 23km detection. They turn on and off P-18 which is reason for gap between 60-70km and 23km and of course F-117 is stealth which makes things even worse.
    According to Zoltan Danny himself:

    _At 8:31 Zoltan Danny explained that he used the lowest frequency setting L-1 at 140 Mhz to see F-117 clearly on radar screen
    _ Between 18:32-19:09 Zoltan Danny explained that he received some intel (outsider information) from headquarters, on when to turn on his radar, as he had no target on his radar screen.
    _ Between 19:43-20:02 Zoltan Danny said he detected several targets at distance 30 km and some are closer, but they are not inside engagement range. We are not sure if those targets are also F-117.
    _ At 20:18, he talked about the exact time when the P-18 suddently acquire a clear track of one F-117 at azimuth 195 (as recorded by Djordje Anicic, this happened at 23 km away)

    For P-18 detection range:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P-18 before modernization.PNG 
Views:	1303 
Size:	29.1 KB 
ID:	262131Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P-18 radar.PNG 
Views:	9 
Size:	640.0 KB 
ID:	262132
    http://progress.gov.ua/wp-content/up...-2016-2017.pdf
    http://www.aerotechnica.ua/en/index....od=2&prodid=51
    Quote Originally Posted by Krivakapa
    SNR-125 range is 80km (instrumental) and that is probable for Tu-16 size target (because that is what Soviets use as measure standard back then) so that would be 80km for 20m2:
    http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.karte...rte032.en.html
    Instrumental range is independent from target RCS. Beside, there are information suggest that F-117 was openning its weapon bay when SNR-125 acquired it as well. Nevertheless, you already saw the anechoic chamber data, there is really no point argue against it.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	instrumental range.PNG 
Views:	18 
Size:	57.5 KB 
ID:	262122
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 14th August 2018 at 10:09.

  24. #474
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    748
    Seriously. These are getting so old.

    Some step for better discussions :

    1.Stop leap of faith.
    One need to stop comparing APS radar with missile seekers. two of which built for very different purpose and therefore having different design choices where one cannot take another's job. Let's take example of RVV-AE Seeker vs much larger ARGS-54 seeker.. They're from XXI Centuries Encyclopedia : Russia's Arms and Technology.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	RVVAE.png 
Views:	13 
Size:	429.2 KB 
ID:	262126

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ARGS-35.png 
Views:	8 
Size:	210.4 KB 
ID:	262127

    Notice similar range despite the latter being bigger (and by logic can have bigger transmitter etc). Because they were handling different situation. A2A missile is expected to have mid course update, very narrow acquisition box and therefore less clutter so they could acquire at such range. Anti ship missile seeker ? it has sea states to contend with, clutter and the fact propagation is kinda unfavorable at low altitude.

    APS Radar face same problem as the AsHM added with multipath which may force it to limit range and perhaps EMCON consideration that forces it to compromise frequency or power limitation that require it to operate at lower band thus sacrifice resolution


    2.Quantify the claim.
    We all know and aware of Raptor or JSF RCS BUT. one annoying problem is.. for what frequency. For some reason wavelength dependence on RCS is often neglected in anyone's argument which no one never bother to rectify. For some reason. It's pointless to say value without anything underlying it.

  25. #475
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by LMFS
    The issue of the diverging RCS estimations has been already explained many times. The lowest value corresponds (if we are to believe that a plane maintained in field can keep such value) to a very concrete an optimized aspect of interest, while the bigger one corresponds to average RCS value. This has also been stated by officials and the chief designer of the Su-57, who are we to believe? Why are statements coming from US MIC to be taken at face value, when they have such an obvious interest in overstating the capacity of their armament?
    Neither the lowest RCS value nor the the average RCS will be very useful to estimate detection range.
    Average number of the whole azimuth RCS will be totally useless, all stealth aircraft alike have spikes where their radar cross section can reach thounsand square meters, these spikes are often locate at the side aspect and have little effect on usual operation, however they will drive up the average number significantly. Therefore the need for scattering diagrams,
    furthermore, if we don't take US rcs claims at face value then we shouldn't take Russian radar detection range claims at face value either, same standard
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	radar scattering.PNG 
Views:	13 
Size:	161.4 KB 
ID:	262128
    Quote Originally Posted by LMFS
    It is known that manoeuvring into that aspect while beyond the adversary's radar range is one of the main tactics of stealth fighters to take advantage of their low radar detectability
    I have never heard of such tactic mentioned any where, in any official manual or documents
    Last edited by moon_light; 14th August 2018 at 09:30.

  26. #476
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by panzerfeist1
    Yes its a sensor for active hard kill. But there is a reason why Trophy and AMAP-APS have a very limited range one is doppler the other LADAR. The T-14 is built to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft missiles to do that you need a good decent firecontrol range to engage aerial targets.
    Before you babbling can you spend sometime to understand what they really mean?Afghanit must have Doppler processing too, otherwise it can't measure speed of the KE or HEAT round that you want to intercept, without knowing speed, it can't intercept these projectiles.
    T-14 does not have dedicated anti aircraft cannon nor anti aircraft missiles, what it has is 12.7 mm cannon and ATGM that can be used against helicopter, this is not that much different from T-90 or Merkava.





    Quote Originally Posted by panzerfeist1
    Aus airpower? Really and you are getting upset with my source? Where did aus-airpower get that reference from? Even I got bashed before using them as a reference.
    Paralay gave a helicopter range will it be engaged. http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016...atest-mbt.html I guess not just one source says 100km.
    He didn't use Ausairpower as his only source, he also use zoltan interview, anechoic chamber chart.
    Claims from random indian website and forum member like paralay are not a legitimate source, especially neither have solid data. Legitimate sources are stuff such as manufacturer data, operational manual, wind tunnel or anechoic chamber data

  27. #477
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    76
    Seriously, where are the mods? This thread is about the Su-57, not about stealth in general and the downing of the F-117.
    Why can't you guys take it to a new thread please.

  28. #478
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    131
    @RALL:
    to be clear, I generally do not believe statements from Russian and US officials or manufacturers are to be taken at face value. You don't give your potential rivals classified information for free to help countering your weapons systems... unless you know they already know or can estimate those values accurately. Sometimes it can even be misinformation or bluffing, who knows. So, those very low values stated by US officials are not "100% clear" to me. But imagine they are so for X band... advanced IADs do not illuminate the target from only one angle and are multi-band. Radars which are not even emitting can pick up scattering from another radar illuminating the target from convenient aspect. While signature management provokes RCS spikes that are theoretically limited to some angles, diffraction is going to happen and is going to scatter small portions of the radiation to the radars listening, even outside of those exact angles. So it is nice and good to have a very low frontal RCS and the correct thing IMHO to do in signature management but tactical reality is not limited to that, if your enemy has a decent, modern radar AD coverage. Also low frequency radars (which are today much more precise than normally claimed in the media) or even OTH radars illuminating targets from above can allow higher frequency ones to be cued to the right sector of the sky with the advantages this means for detection range.

    Regarding what the Russian scientists can know about the F-22, well the aircraft as any other object follows the laws of physics and as such there is the possibility of simulating its RCS. If the guys doing the simulation know all applicable phenomena and technological possibilities then they could in fact reach a realistic estimation. That is what justifies Western claims about lack of stealth on the Su-57 first of all. And Russians are, at least on the theoretical side of the story, well equipped as you know. They claim signature information from Syria (an issue about which USAF guys were not comfortable at all) confirmed their simulations. Again, we are left to guess if this makes sense or not but it should not be rejected without some analysis I think.

    BTW, I very much doubt a long range radar detection of a US VLO plane would be disclosed as you claim. This would be a very major blow to American credibility and military prestige and hence intrinsically harmful to national security and businesses. Where would the F-35 program go in that case for instance?

    As to the F-22 manoeuvring themselves into dead spots of Iranian aircraft, this is possible even with legacy fighters. Do not know or dispute the case you refer specifically but the notion that such feats prove any concrete level of stealth in a general way.

    @moon_light
    Agree, one single RCS value without scattering diagram is not saying much as discussed above. Also agree that no side should be believed blindly.

    In regards of manoeuvring into the dead spots of you rival, maybe it is not stated publicly but it is completely logical, do you see it differently?

  29. #479
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,437
    YAK-28-Brewer,

    Here..they claim SU-57 is superior to the F-22 ( product of the 80-ies ).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4VN58C_6c

    Is that so ? If then...why ?
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  30. #480
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    76
    Your point being? I'm well aware of previous discussion regarding Su-57 stealth in this thread, discussions that have been had ad infinitum in previous threads. It adds nothing new. However the past two pages have been about shooting down the F-117 and RCS in general. Very little discussion of the Su-57 as there has been little news of it of late. Personally think this should be closed.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES