By: haavarla
- 12th July 2018 at 19:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KGB, i fail to ser any point of posting reference to bad sources. We all know Internet is crowded with them, but still.. you are poluting this thread with boring and unintresting stuff.
And you do not need to reply every post of people whom have a different opinion.
There are many senior members on here, many if not most have a good time just snapping up tidbit of news.. any news. But to have to skim through nonsens of pages just to find it is highly anoying!
The best thread around here is by far the military Aviation news thread by TANGO, hands down.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 12th July 2018 at 20:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Haavarla
Do you really think that these reports are just honest mistakes from "bad sources" ? Ha..
They aren't. They are condescending hit pieces against the su 57. It's a disinformation witch hunt. There is nothing in good faith here. Where are the corrections for these errors ? There is none. Because they know what they are doing
And its exactly what ActionJackson is doing too.
Why the hell should we have to put up with the thread being polluted with things that he makes up ? Look at him. He's obsessed. He has an agenda. He's not even an Internet fanboy pseudo expert. He's a Russophobic sh** poster
You should see what forums devolve into when the sophists just run wild. The stuff they convince themselves of about the su 57 is cringe worthy
By: LMFS
- 12th July 2018 at 22:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree KGB here. This is a disingenuous smear campaign motivated by a mix of poor losers attitude and blind sectarism. Some posters just keep on repeating the same ridiculous smear points over and over and over, simply ignoring any argument that proves the weakness of their reasonings and the most elementary logic and decency. No, they are way above Sukhoi guys, who are only capable of clumsily imitating shapes of Western LO aircraft but without even knowing what a spherical reflector is. Truly mind blowing, I'm left speechless by the cheek of this propagandistic posturing.
There are dozens of honest forum members here that would like to discuss interesting news and issues about the Su-57 but instead have to endure this non-stop sh*t storm from some guys that find it necessary to show us the light. Leave us in peace, for god's sake!
New
Posts: 376
By: panzerfeist1
- 12th July 2018 at 22:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"In 2014 they states their development program finished and produced several kind of UHF GaN modules."
Several are you twisting what is said as already stated? he said 4 of those mmics are to be used for krasukha, tarantula,khlibiny and himalayas did he not? He have an example of the 4 GaN UHF modules, than gave an example of the 4 EW systems...... Please atleast dont tell me that you think there are other EW systems that you think he is referring to?
"where did they even mentioned the EW system is Himalayas like you are trying to imply? " So what your saying is you actually think that the mig-35s,mig-29s and su-30s are to have GaN than their newer aircraft? Because 1. you do not believe that it is present in mentioned jammers from Rostec 2. They mentioned EW GaN is present on aircraft and EW systems but since you disagree with the 4 systems mentioned by Rostec since it is not mentioned than what other EW systems do you think they have that have GaN since they have literally stated that.
"What they said is totally correct because in the market at the moment there are many EW system using GaAs modules, and some uses GaN modules." Not even once have they mentioned the majority of their EW systems are GaAS there better not be any voices in your head to suggest otherwise which is why you post a catalog page but an actual quote.
"They didn't say Their EW system uses GaN." Are you on damage control or something? As stated multiple times, "Usually, solid-state gallium-arsenide and
gallium-nitride amplifi
ers are used as active
elements of active phased-array antennas of
present-day EW equipment. "
You say they didnt say GaN but they state they used GaN. You say they use GaAS more than GaN while they only state the use both not even once stating they used GaAS.
"GaN T/R modules are used in radar system we produced " but that doesn't mean we should assume APG-77v1 and AGP-81 use GaN (at the moment we only know that TPS-80 has GaN element). Or BAE can correctly say "we produced EW system with GaN modules" no no no there is a huge difference in comparing apples and oranges. 2014 they state where the GaN MMICs are to be used, apg-77v1, N036 and apg-81 there can be multiple sources found that state they used GaAS. The difference is they mentioned the Himalayas GaN MMIC features months later say they have present GaN on their EW systems. The only EW systems they mentioned of GaN are their newest EW appliances. 2015 there was nothing present of what new EW systems would be using GaN. 2014 they said where GaN will be applied until time later they have mentioned it is present. Give me a hint what other new EW systems that came out in 2015 to make you believe that it is GaN? I already gave you a clue.
"put a Sniper-XR pod on B-1 but Sniper-XR isn't created for B-1 only" What kind of example is this? Are you suggesting that there are different aircraft that can be fitted with the Himalayas?
"i said those UHF elements weren't created specifically for Himalayas" 4 GaN UHF modules, 4 systems that are to use GaN as stated, OK I hope you mean that the UHF elements were created specifically for 4 different systems? Unless your thinking those GaN mmics are for the mig-29 or whatever because they state 4 different GaN for 4 different specific EW systems.
"Size reduction and efficiency in form of percentage how do you know know they are the same without a base number?? What if the previous version is bucky?. Imagine someone said his house dog is half as big as her father, his house cat is half as big as her mother, then someone else concluded that the dog and cat are equal in size. Won't you think that will be a ridiculous assumption? " Which is why I was asking a question in the 1st place if anyone knew the sizes of either being based off of LTCC besides the same size reduction and if one is applied with GaN using LTCC for EW systems is it applied for their T/R modules regarding their radar? That is all.
"You have yet to give us the citation to these range" http://tass.com/defense/942027
Krasukha-20 The entire system is deployed within several minutes without a man’s participation, after which it is capable of disabling an AWACS at a distance of several hundred kilometers.
If most of their new EW systems like were presently operaional before feb-2015 I would have not said a word. But the fact that there were no newer systems that I can think between 2014-2015 other than the Krasukha-4 and himalayas being presented between that timeline, that they were introduced with GaN between, that time and now state they have already GaN present in their EW systems.
"In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming "
I hope that you are pulling my leg 2-20ghz for ECM and jamming. OK how about a patent with that range regarding """"radar"""".
By: ActionJackson
- 12th July 2018 at 23:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Plenty of high bandwidth HPAs available at Wolfspeed RF (formerly Cree). 1-18GHz are fairly common and the have nice little 70W for all your jamming and high bandwidth needs.
In other developments Cree have now released an extremely tiny uhf Radar amplifier capable of a whopping 900W output. 900W per TR module!
These guys are doing amazing stuff still and their GaN product line is huge. It’s good to see other companies have finally progressed past prototype phase though, just not sure they’ll be disrupting the market any time soon.
By: KGB
- 13th July 2018 at 04:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And ppl like FBW and Haarvala deny that there is a media witchhunt against the su 57 :applause:
Absolute libelous gutter trash journalism gets propagated by mainstream western media outlets. And unsuspecting media consumers get exposed to it and believe it. And pretty soon, the reputation of the su 57 gets completely shredded. Based on nothing but lies and sophistry. And then we have little trash artists like ActionJackson to fill in the gaps.
Where do they get the energy ? How does this garbage pass the editorial board ?
Stealth is in quotes. "NO MORE ORDERS ARE COMING" Yeeahhh.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 13th July 2018 at 04:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So Russia's dream of developing its own 5th gen are dashed. Except that the jet is already developed and is entering production.
This was the senior stealth scientist who said that there was gaps where the vertical stabilizers connect to the fuselage. This scientist -doing an ActionJackson- wasn't aware that the su 57 has all-moving vertical stabilizers. Which just goes to show what a fools errand doing an ActionJackson is.
In case you were curious about that IHS Janes hotlink. Here it is :
By: mig-31bm
- 13th July 2018 at 05:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Several are you twisting what is said as already stated? he said 4 of those mmics are to be used for krasukha, tarantula,khlibiny and himalayas did he not? He have an example of the 4 GaN UHF modules, than gave an example of the 4 EW systems...... Please atleast dont tell me that you think there are other EW systems that you think he is referring to? So what your saying is you actually think that the mig-35s,mig-29s and su-30s are to have GaN than their newer aircraft? Because 1. you do not believe that it is present in mentioned jammers from Rostec 2. They mentioned EW GaN is present on aircraft and EW systems but since you disagree with the 4 systems mentioned by Rostec since it is not mentioned than what other EW systems do you think they have that have GaN since they have literally stated that.
1-It is entirely possible for mig-35, su-35, su-34 to have GaN modules earlier than Pak-fa, newer generation aircraft doesn't always have all the newest bell and whistle because you don't want the cost to be too high reducing the number you can purchase, and you also want to shorten developement cycles so that you can get them into low rate initial production as early as possible. Moreover, newer aircraft generally have others advantages that make them much more survivable and therfore doesn't need new system as much as legacy aircraft. This practice is more common than you would expect, for example F-15/F-16/F-18 get HMD and high off boresight missiles much sooner than F-22 or for US GaN modules are intergrated into F-15 EPAWSS and EA-18 NGJ firstbefore anything else or ATP-SE more sensors than current EOTS, there are others example but the point is life # video game, all program need cost and risk management.
2- [ATTACH=CONFIG]261494[/ATTACH] So they stated that their UHF amplifier will improve 4 specific jamming system and an unknow number of communication system, there is nothing to indicate that the later NIIP's statement is about Himalyas specifically, you just assume that it was, but it could easily about some EW communication system or Taranlu, or Krasukha-4 or Khibiny..etc. If anything, Krasukha-4 would be the best candidate to implement UHF GaN modules, because there virtually it have no size and cooling constraint , and thefore very low risk, a support jamming system will also benefit more from high power UHF amplifier than a self-defensive ECM of stealth aircraft because stealth aircraft can already do well with jammer several hundred times weaker.
Not even once have they mentioned the majority of their EW systems are GaAS there better not be any voices in your head to suggest otherwise which is why you post a catalog page but an actual quote
I always try to post photos that consist of the whole paragraph, because it is neutral and everyone can see what is actually said. When you write a short quote , it can be misleading. Also, it is a fact that currently, on the market there are more EW system with GaAs than with GaN.
Are you on damage control or something? As stated multiple times,
You say they didnt say GaN but they state they used GaN. You say they use GaAS more than GaN while they only state the use both not even once stating they used GaAS.
Iam not on damage control, but you either playing dumb or you don't understand what they wrote.
They didn't specified that THEIR equipment use GaN and GaAs but merely that GaAs and GaN are usually used in active elements of present day EW equipment, which is true when the whole market is considered. Oh and Gallium arsenide is GaAs.
no no no there is a huge difference in comparing apples and oranges. 2014 they state where the GaN MMICs are to be used, apg-77v1, N036 and apg-81 there can be multiple sources found that state they used GaAS.
Where are the sources that state ASQ-239 and APG-81 uses GaAS? Iam pretty there are no information on what material they used, only assumption
The difference is they mentioned the Himalayas GaN MMIC features months later say they have present GaN on their EW systems.
That isn't really what they said, they say they made 4 type of UHF GaN modules, which will improve size and efficiency of EW system, one of these EW system they mentioned is Himalayas but it isn't the only one. Also they didn't really said "they have present GaN on their EW systems but rather present day EW systems uses GaAs and GaN, which really isn't limited to their product"
The only EW systems they mentioned of GaN are their newest EW appliances.Give me a hint what other new EW systems that came out in 2015 to make you believe that it is GaN? I already gave you a clue.
No and could easy be Krasukha-4
What kind of example is this? Are you suggesting that there are different aircraft that can be fitted with the Himalayas?
.....
I meant the relationship between Himalayas and these UHF modules is the same as the relationship between B-1 and sniper-XR pod. You are trying to suggest that these UHF modules are created specifically for Himalayas, but they aren't.
4 GaN UHF modules, 4 systems that are to use GaN as stated, OK I hope you mean that the UHF elements were created specifically for 4 different systems? Unless your thinking those GaN mmics are for the mig-29 or whatever because they state 4 different GaN for 4 different specific EW systems.
Help yourself
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261494[/ATTACH]
Which is why I was asking a question in the 1st place if anyone knew the sizes of either being based off of LTCC besides the same size reduction and if one is applied with GaN using LTCC for EW systems is it applied for their T/R modules regarding their radar? That is all.
So exactly what i said.
http://tass.com/defense/942027
Krasukha-20 The entire system is deployed within several minutes without a man’s participation, after which it is capable of disabling an AWACS at a distance of several hundred kilometers.
That would make a decent source until they mentioned the Donald Cook , Su-22 incident hoax then all their credibility gone........
This is what happened with the US destroyer Donald Cook in 2014 when the warship’s air defense systems locked on a Russian Su-24 plane.
The data appearing on the warship’s radars put the crew at a loss: the aircraft would now and then disappear from radar screens or suddenly change its location and speed or create electronic clones of additional targets while the destroyer’s information and weaponry control combat systems were actually disabled
More: http://tass.com/defense/942027
Either way, the number is quite meaningless without knowing radar cross section of friendly aircraft you want to protect and how far are they from the AEW&C
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261503[/ATTACH]
There is no mentioned of "700 km" inside that page like you claimed, may be your English isn't very good but "several" # "seven" , either way you would know it is BS if you understand the concept of radar horizon. By the way, why cite from some trash site like deagel.com when you can cite the manufacturer's video ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unrtNOTJd34
Honestly though, it kinda funny when their market department think it is impressive when a self defensive system can jam from 300 km when it should be the opposite, short range jamming is harder.
Jamming Communication system # Jamming radar system
If most of their new EW systems like were presently operaional before feb-2015 I would have not said a word. But the fact that there were no newer systems that I can think between 2014-2015 other than the Krasukha-4 and himalayas being presented between that timeline, that they were introduced with GaN between, that time and now state they have already GaN present in their EW systems.
See above.
I hope that you are pulling my leg 2-20ghz for ECM and jamming. OK how about a patent with that range regarding """"radar"""".
Iam not pulling your leg, each individual microwave transmitter can transmit between 1 to 18 GHz doesn't mean the bandwidth of radar will be from 1-18 Ghz. You can see in Northrup Grumman pattern that the elements can transmit and receive between 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz, but only in the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz the multi functional array will operate as radar. Due to this. Jamming don't have as strict requirement about beamwidth and side lobe as radar
By: Austin
- 13th July 2018 at 06:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That not what Yuri Borisov said , The western media as usual are twisting the story to favour their agenda :lol:
He said 12 aircraft are now produced for initial squadron service till 2020 post that mass production will take place ,when reporter asked why it was now mass produced now he said Su-35 was getting produced so there is no need to hurry.
The Russian defense ministry has ordered 12 new production Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighters and confirmed next year as the target date for entry-into-service. First flown eight years ago, 10 prototypes of the Su-57 have flown to date, and two of these may also join the first squadron. One of the prototypes has been flying with new "Item 30" engines since last December, but the initial production aircraft will retain the less advanced AL-41F-1 turbofans (manufacturer’s designation Item 117).
Yuri Slyusar, president of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), has said that if flight tests of the Item 30 engines go as planned, they will be installed on production Su-57s starting in 2023-2025.
Inspecting Sukhoi’s KnAAPO factory in Komsomolsk-upon-Amur in late June, deputy minister Aleksei Krivoruchko told journalists that the Su-57 prototypes had “demonstrated full compliance to the customer’s specification” during flight trials and the overseas deployment in Syria last February. Reportedly, this deployment lasted for several days, during which four aircraft flew combat missions out of the Russian expedition force’s main base in Khemeimeem, to hit targets in the rebel-held areas during the Syrian Arab Army’s Operation “Damascus Steel.”
Two months after that, the defense ministry released a few shots from a video that showed an Su-57 launching a missile from its internal weapons bay in the lower fuselage. The weapon bore a close resemblance to the Tactical Missile Corporation (Russian acronym TRV) Kh-59MK2 that debuted at MAKS’2015. It is the second weapon by the same designation: the previous Kh-59MK2 was on display at MAKS’2009. Both are subsonic and have a firing range of approximately 300 km. While the earlier example had a launch weight of about a tonne and an active-radar seeker to home on radio-contrast targets, primarily ships, the newer version weighs 770 kg and employs an electro-optic seeker to home on land targets.
Although the defense ministry officials praise Sukhoi and KnAAPO for timely execution of state defense orders, including on the Su-57, they are yet to place substantial orders for the type. The exportable version, known as the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), is also having difficulty with its first intended customer, the Indian air force, which has not yet decided whether to stay in the respective joint project with Russia.
When asked about the prospects for KnAAPO, Yuri Borisov, the deputy head of the Russian government responsible for military industrial complex, told journalists that the enterprise has a considerable order backlog for the Su-35. “Today, the Su-35 is one of the world’s best fighters, so there is no reason for us to speed up work on mass production of the FGFA.”
By: FBW
- 13th July 2018 at 06:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of pure morbid curiosity, is it “good news” that a state run aerospace manufacturer has produced 90 ish Su-35s over 6 years, a positive that the newest fighter will have a production run of 12 aircraft over the next year GPV?
In the words of RT “question more”.
Forget western media, ask why even the Su35s production is pathetic.
F-35.... 300 and counting for a “failed project”, the USN has had more advanced aircraft delivered than the VKS, recently.
Wake me up when then combined Su-35s and SU-57 production equals the “cancelled” 195 airframe run of the F-22.
By: Austin
- 13th July 2018 at 06:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats because Su-35 is not the only aircraft produced there is Su-34 , Su-30SM and SU-27 SM3 the list is longer
GPV is for 2018-2025 and 12 aircraft is till 2020 for intiial squadron formation , this will be the most critical phase as aircraft would be flying day in and out and repair maintenance combat training manual will be written in real day to day flying a good and critical time of life for any new aircraft entering combat service to find out any critical/less critical problems gets detected and fixed.
By: blackwood
- 13th July 2018 at 07:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont want to start a them versus them argument. But you have the US with a 650 billion dollar defence budget against Russia's 60 billion or if you take it PPP maybe 100 billion dollar defence budget. They are never going to produce 300 planes ie F-35s a year. France is lucky to squeeze out 12 planes a year going up to 15 a year soon for their plane. Lucky Russia can produce 12 Pak-fas, 12 Su-35s, 15-18 Su-30SMs, 12-16 Su-34s modify 12 Su-27s a year.
By: JSR
- 13th July 2018 at 09:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of pure morbid curiosity, is it “good news” that a state run aerospace manufacturer has produced 90 ish Su-35s over 6 years, a positive that the newest fighter will have a production run of 12 aircraft over the next year GPV?
In the words of RT “question more”.
Forget western media, ask why even the Su35s production is pathetic.
F-35.... 300 and counting for a “failed project”, the USN has had more advanced aircraft delivered than the VKS, recently.
Wake me up when then combined Su-35s and SU-57 production equals the “cancelled” 195 airframe run of the F-22.
Last edited by FBW; 13th July 2018 at 06:49.
I am surprised you are even comparing production rates. Each new Flanker comes with big pods. bigger than pods and range than carried by F-35 and F-22.
Plus Industrial labor is more efficiently used in upgrading even longer range bombers. There is a lot more difference in diversifaction and throughput of energy so that another financial crises does not cut production un like F-22.
By: LMFS
- 13th July 2018 at 10:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of pure morbid curiosity, is it “good news” that a state run aerospace manufacturer has produced 90 ish Su-35s over 6 years, a positive that the newest fighter will have a production run of 12 aircraft over the next year GPV?
In the words of RT “question more”.
Forget western media, ask why even the Su35s production is pathetic.
F-35.... 300 and counting for a “failed project”, the USN has had more advanced aircraft delivered than the VKS, recently.
Wake me up when then combined Su-35s and SU-57 production equals the “cancelled” 195 airframe run of the F-22.
Wait, I thought Russia was a terrible risk to the West that needs an increase of NATO military budget to be countered. But according to you they are pathetic. Make up your mind first and then we talk ok? Reality if you are a sane person is that military spending is not desirable since needs to be subtracted from expenditure devoted to social policies and economic development. What is wrong with the Russians if they do not feel threatened enough by the US military? Do better your job guys, until now there is no need to match the number of fighters of USAF to defend the country.
BTW, perfectly ok to wake you up when orders reach that level, until then maybe you could stop polluting the thread? We understand you don't like the plane, so why to keep around only to put it down?
By: RALL
- 13th July 2018 at 11:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KGB, this is not the kindergarden. Why are you linking so many trash into the thread?
Really i understand now why this thread is deleted each few months. You do not know contrast different opinions on a normal way, and yes in a teenager and upset way. If you are not agree with something told by ActionJackson then you need try to give your opinion on a normal way. But you prefer show no respect about opinion of other people you do not like. Other people has tried to debate with respect with normal discussion. Maybe you do not understand what a forum is, and you need to set up a blog only for yourself.
A troll is when people come to say how bad this plane is but without providing any argument to support its claims. ActionJackson showed elaborate opinions about what he thinks about the level of furtivity of this plane. If you do not agree, you can contrast that opinion by arguing.
This is a SU-57 thread, and is normal to talk about this airplane, and not only things you like. Have you been in a F-35 thread and things people told about this "millonaire and fat" airplane? It was told worst things. do you know what things was told by RT or Sputnik about this airplane? Or only do you look in one direction?
By: Mercurius
- 13th July 2018 at 14:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A few recent snippets from earlier postings in this thread:
"gutter journalism"
"condescending hit pieces against the su 57"
"a disinformation witch hunt"
"a disingenuous smear campaign motivated by a mix of poor losers attitude and blind sectarism"
"Western libel against the PAK-FA"
"media witchhunt against the su 57"
"Absolute libelous gutter trash journalism"
"The western media as usual are twisting the story to favour their agenda"
Some people (especially KGB) seem to be getting really worked up over the idea that an anti Su-57 campaign is being mounted. But no explanations are offered as to why defence journalists, defence academics, and some of our forum posters are taking part in this alleged campaign. Nor are we being told who is allegedly masterminding this conspiracy.
To my mind, the snippets I have cited are as silly as the claim in the old 'Soviet Military Review' magazine that there was an entire department in the Pentagon whose task was to write news material and magazine articles critical of the Soviet armed forces and their equipment. (This material was allegedly provided to Western defence magazines free of charge, to be published under the byeline of the magazines' own journalists.)
But one thing I will confidently predict is that the posters of these snippets are not defence journalists or defence academics, and have almost certainly never met a member of these professions, let alone discussed such conspiracy theories with them.
I will be off to the Farnborough Air Show next week. My schedule is filling with briefings on various subjects, but so far I have not been offered any briefings on the Su-57. Perhaps the masterminds who run the anti Su-57 campaign have overlooked me....
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 12th July 2018 at 19:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KGB, i fail to ser any point of posting reference to bad sources. We all know Internet is crowded with them, but still.. you are poluting this thread with boring and unintresting stuff.
And you do not need to reply every post of people whom have a different opinion.
There are many senior members on here, many if not most have a good time just snapping up tidbit of news.. any news. But to have to skim through nonsens of pages just to find it is highly anoying!
The best thread around here is by far the military Aviation news thread by TANGO, hands down.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 12th July 2018 at 20:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Haavarla
Do you really think that these reports are just honest mistakes from "bad sources" ? Ha..
They aren't. They are condescending hit pieces against the su 57. It's a disinformation witch hunt. There is nothing in good faith here. Where are the corrections for these errors ? There is none. Because they know what they are doing
And its exactly what ActionJackson is doing too.
Why the hell should we have to put up with the thread being polluted with things that he makes up ? Look at him. He's obsessed. He has an agenda. He's not even an Internet fanboy pseudo expert. He's a Russophobic sh** poster
You should see what forums devolve into when the sophists just run wild. The stuff they convince themselves of about the su 57 is cringe worthy
Posts: 484
By: LMFS - 12th July 2018 at 22:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree KGB here. This is a disingenuous smear campaign motivated by a mix of poor losers attitude and blind sectarism. Some posters just keep on repeating the same ridiculous smear points over and over and over, simply ignoring any argument that proves the weakness of their reasonings and the most elementary logic and decency. No, they are way above Sukhoi guys, who are only capable of clumsily imitating shapes of Western LO aircraft but without even knowing what a spherical reflector is. Truly mind blowing, I'm left speechless by the cheek of this propagandistic posturing.
There are dozens of honest forum members here that would like to discuss interesting news and issues about the Su-57 but instead have to endure this non-stop sh*t storm from some guys that find it necessary to show us the light. Leave us in peace, for god's sake!
Posts: 376
By: panzerfeist1 - 12th July 2018 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"In 2014 they states their development program finished and produced several kind of UHF GaN modules."
Several are you twisting what is said as already stated? he said 4 of those mmics are to be used for krasukha, tarantula,khlibiny and himalayas did he not? He have an example of the 4 GaN UHF modules, than gave an example of the 4 EW systems...... Please atleast dont tell me that you think there are other EW systems that you think he is referring to?
"where did they even mentioned the EW system is Himalayas like you are trying to imply? " So what your saying is you actually think that the mig-35s,mig-29s and su-30s are to have GaN than their newer aircraft? Because 1. you do not believe that it is present in mentioned jammers from Rostec 2. They mentioned EW GaN is present on aircraft and EW systems but since you disagree with the 4 systems mentioned by Rostec since it is not mentioned than what other EW systems do you think they have that have GaN since they have literally stated that.
"What they said is totally correct because in the market at the moment there are many EW system using GaAs modules, and some uses GaN modules." Not even once have they mentioned the majority of their EW systems are GaAS there better not be any voices in your head to suggest otherwise which is why you post a catalog page but an actual quote.
"They didn't say Their EW system uses GaN." Are you on damage control or something? As stated multiple times, "Usually, solid-state gallium-arsenide and
gallium-nitride amplifi
ers are used as active
elements of active phased-array antennas of
present-day EW equipment. "
You say they didnt say GaN but they state they used GaN. You say they use GaAS more than GaN while they only state the use both not even once stating they used GaAS.
"GaN T/R modules are used in radar system we produced " but that doesn't mean we should assume APG-77v1 and AGP-81 use GaN (at the moment we only know that TPS-80 has GaN element). Or BAE can correctly say "we produced EW system with GaN modules" no no no there is a huge difference in comparing apples and oranges. 2014 they state where the GaN MMICs are to be used, apg-77v1, N036 and apg-81 there can be multiple sources found that state they used GaAS. The difference is they mentioned the Himalayas GaN MMIC features months later say they have present GaN on their EW systems. The only EW systems they mentioned of GaN are their newest EW appliances. 2015 there was nothing present of what new EW systems would be using GaN. 2014 they said where GaN will be applied until time later they have mentioned it is present. Give me a hint what other new EW systems that came out in 2015 to make you believe that it is GaN? I already gave you a clue.
"put a Sniper-XR pod on B-1 but Sniper-XR isn't created for B-1 only" What kind of example is this? Are you suggesting that there are different aircraft that can be fitted with the Himalayas?
"i said those UHF elements weren't created specifically for Himalayas" 4 GaN UHF modules, 4 systems that are to use GaN as stated, OK I hope you mean that the UHF elements were created specifically for 4 different systems? Unless your thinking those GaN mmics are for the mig-29 or whatever because they state 4 different GaN for 4 different specific EW systems.
"Size reduction and efficiency in form of percentage how do you know know they are the same without a base number?? What if the previous version is bucky?. Imagine someone said his house dog is half as big as her father, his house cat is half as big as her mother, then someone else concluded that the dog and cat are equal in size. Won't you think that will be a ridiculous assumption? " Which is why I was asking a question in the 1st place if anyone knew the sizes of either being based off of LTCC besides the same size reduction and if one is applied with GaN using LTCC for EW systems is it applied for their T/R modules regarding their radar? That is all.
"You have yet to give us the citation to these range"
http://tass.com/defense/942027
Krasukha-20 The entire system is deployed within several minutes without a man’s participation, after which it is capable of disabling an AWACS at a distance of several hundred kilometers.
http://www.deagel.com/Protection-Systems/Richag-AV_a003124001.aspx Rychag-av stating 700km, AVM unknown.
Murmansk-bn http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Vehicles/Murmansk-BN_a003384001.aspx max coverage 3000km
If most of their new EW systems like were presently operaional before feb-2015 I would have not said a word. But the fact that there were no newer systems that I can think between 2014-2015 other than the Krasukha-4 and himalayas being presented between that timeline, that they were introduced with GaN between, that time and now state they have already GaN present in their EW systems.
"In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming "
I hope that you are pulling my leg 2-20ghz for ECM and jamming. OK how about a patent with that range regarding """"radar"""".
Posts: 276
By: ActionJackson - 12th July 2018 at 23:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Plenty of high bandwidth HPAs available at Wolfspeed RF (formerly Cree). 1-18GHz are fairly common and the have nice little 70W for all your jamming and high bandwidth needs.
In other developments Cree have now released an extremely tiny uhf Radar amplifier capable of a whopping 900W output. 900W per TR module!
https://www.wolfspeed.com/cghv1j070d
These guys are doing amazing stuff still and their GaN product line is huge. It’s good to see other companies have finally progressed past prototype phase though, just not sure they’ll be disrupting the market any time soon.
Posts: 113
By: tankdriver67 - 13th July 2018 at 02:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7
Is it really cancelled?
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 13th July 2018 at 02:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was wondering how long it would take for the Business Insider article to show up
Posts: 484
By: LMFS - 13th July 2018 at 03:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for bringing that excellent example of Western libel against the PAK-FA
Here the confirmation of the PAK-FA cancellation:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201806301065909032-russian-military-purchase-steaqlth-fighters-su57/
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 13th July 2018 at 04:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And ppl like FBW and Haarvala deny that there is a media witchhunt against the su 57 :applause:
Absolute libelous gutter trash journalism gets propagated by mainstream western media outlets. And unsuspecting media consumers get exposed to it and believe it. And pretty soon, the reputation of the su 57 gets completely shredded. Based on nothing but lies and sophistry. And then we have little trash artists like ActionJackson to fill in the gaps.
Where do they get the energy ? How does this garbage pass the editorial board ?
Stealth is in quotes. "NO MORE ORDERS ARE COMING" Yeeahhh.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 13th July 2018 at 04:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So Russia's dream of developing its own 5th gen are dashed. Except that the jet is already developed and is entering production.
This was the senior stealth scientist who said that there was gaps where the vertical stabilizers connect to the fuselage. This scientist -doing an ActionJackson- wasn't aware that the su 57 has all-moving vertical stabilizers. Which just goes to show what a fools errand doing an ActionJackson is.
In case you were curious about that IHS Janes hotlink. Here it is :
Janes360 - Page Not Found!
404 Error
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 13th July 2018 at 05:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1-It is entirely possible for mig-35, su-35, su-34 to have GaN modules earlier than Pak-fa, newer generation aircraft doesn't always have all the newest bell and whistle because you don't want the cost to be too high reducing the number you can purchase, and you also want to shorten developement cycles so that you can get them into low rate initial production as early as possible. Moreover, newer aircraft generally have others advantages that make them much more survivable and therfore doesn't need new system as much as legacy aircraft. This practice is more common than you would expect, for example F-15/F-16/F-18 get HMD and high off boresight missiles much sooner than F-22 or for US GaN modules are intergrated into F-15 EPAWSS and EA-18 NGJ firstbefore anything else or ATP-SE more sensors than current EOTS, there are others example but the point is life # video game, all program need cost and risk management.
2- [ATTACH=CONFIG]261494[/ATTACH] So they stated that their UHF amplifier will improve 4 specific jamming system and an unknow number of communication system, there is nothing to indicate that the later NIIP's statement is about Himalyas specifically, you just assume that it was, but it could easily about some EW communication system or Taranlu, or Krasukha-4 or Khibiny..etc. If anything, Krasukha-4 would be the best candidate to implement UHF GaN modules, because there virtually it have no size and cooling constraint , and thefore very low risk, a support jamming system will also benefit more from high power UHF amplifier than a self-defensive ECM of stealth aircraft because stealth aircraft can already do well with jammer several hundred times weaker.
I always try to post photos that consist of the whole paragraph, because it is neutral and everyone can see what is actually said. When you write a short quote , it can be misleading. Also, it is a fact that currently, on the market there are more EW system with GaAs than with GaN.
Iam not on damage control, but you either playing dumb or you don't understand what they wrote.
They didn't specified that THEIR equipment use GaN and GaAs but merely that GaAs and GaN are usually used in active elements of present day EW equipment, which is true when the whole market is considered. Oh and Gallium arsenide is GaAs.
Where are the sources that state ASQ-239 and APG-81 uses GaAS? Iam pretty there are no information on what material they used, only assumption
That isn't really what they said, they say they made 4 type of UHF GaN modules, which will improve size and efficiency of EW system, one of these EW system they mentioned is Himalayas but it isn't the only one. Also they didn't really said "they have present GaN on their EW systems but rather present day EW systems uses GaAs and GaN, which really isn't limited to their product"
No and could easy be Krasukha-4
.....
I meant the relationship between Himalayas and these UHF modules is the same as the relationship between B-1 and sniper-XR pod. You are trying to suggest that these UHF modules are created specifically for Himalayas, but they aren't.
Help yourself
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261494[/ATTACH]
So exactly what i said.
That would make a decent source until they mentioned the Donald Cook , Su-22 incident hoax then all their credibility gone........
Either way, the number is quite meaningless without knowing radar cross section of friendly aircraft you want to protect and how far are they from the AEW&C
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261503[/ATTACH]
There is no mentioned of "700 km" inside that page like you claimed, may be your English isn't very good but "several" # "seven" , either way you would know it is BS if you understand the concept of radar horizon. By the way, why cite from some trash site like deagel.com when you can cite the manufacturer's video ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unrtNOTJd34
Honestly though, it kinda funny when their market department think it is impressive when a self defensive system can jam from 300 km when it should be the opposite, short range jamming is harder.
Jamming Communication system # Jamming radar system
See above.
Iam not pulling your leg, each individual microwave transmitter can transmit between 1 to 18 GHz doesn't mean the bandwidth of radar will be from 1-18 Ghz. You can see in Northrup Grumman pattern that the elements can transmit and receive between 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz, but only in the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz the multi functional array will operate as radar. Due to this. Jamming don't have as strict requirement about beamwidth and side lobe as radar
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 13th July 2018 at 06:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That not what Yuri Borisov said , The western media as usual are twisting the story to favour their agenda :lol:
He said 12 aircraft are now produced for initial squadron service till 2020 post that mass production will take place ,when reporter asked why it was now mass produced now he said Su-35 was getting produced so there is no need to hurry.
Russia Places Initial Production Order for Stealth Fighter
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 13th July 2018 at 06:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of pure morbid curiosity, is it “good news” that a state run aerospace manufacturer has produced 90 ish Su-35s over 6 years, a positive that the newest fighter will have a production run of 12 aircraft over the next year GPV?
In the words of RT “question more”.
Forget western media, ask why even the Su35s production is pathetic.
F-35.... 300 and counting for a “failed project”, the USN has had more advanced aircraft delivered than the VKS, recently.
Wake me up when then combined Su-35s and SU-57 production equals the “cancelled” 195 airframe run of the F-22.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 13th July 2018 at 06:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats because Su-35 is not the only aircraft produced there is Su-34 , Su-30SM and SU-27 SM3 the list is longer
GPV is for 2018-2025 and 12 aircraft is till 2020 for intiial squadron formation , this will be the most critical phase as aircraft would be flying day in and out and repair maintenance combat training manual will be written in real day to day flying a good and critical time of life for any new aircraft entering combat service to find out any critical/less critical problems gets detected and fixed.
Posts: 269
By: Lt Anderson - 13th July 2018 at 07:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Propaganda Vs propaganda... Boring...
Posts: 307
By: blackwood - 13th July 2018 at 07:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont want to start a them versus them argument. But you have the US with a 650 billion dollar defence budget against Russia's 60 billion or if you take it PPP maybe 100 billion dollar defence budget. They are never going to produce 300 planes ie F-35s a year. France is lucky to squeeze out 12 planes a year going up to 15 a year soon for their plane. Lucky Russia can produce 12 Pak-fas, 12 Su-35s, 15-18 Su-30SMs, 12-16 Su-34s modify 12 Su-27s a year.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 13th July 2018 at 09:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am surprised you are even comparing production rates. Each new Flanker comes with big pods. bigger than pods and range than carried by F-35 and F-22.
Plus Industrial labor is more efficiently used in upgrading even longer range bombers. There is a lot more difference in diversifaction and throughput of energy so that another financial crises does not cut production un like F-22.
Posts: 484
By: LMFS - 13th July 2018 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wait, I thought Russia was a terrible risk to the West that needs an increase of NATO military budget to be countered. But according to you they are pathetic. Make up your mind first and then we talk ok? Reality if you are a sane person is that military spending is not desirable since needs to be subtracted from expenditure devoted to social policies and economic development. What is wrong with the Russians if they do not feel threatened enough by the US military? Do better your job guys, until now there is no need to match the number of fighters of USAF to defend the country.
BTW, perfectly ok to wake you up when orders reach that level, until then maybe you could stop polluting the thread? We understand you don't like the plane, so why to keep around only to put it down?
Posts: 156
By: RALL - 13th July 2018 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
KGB, this is not the kindergarden. Why are you linking so many trash into the thread?
Really i understand now why this thread is deleted each few months. You do not know contrast different opinions on a normal way, and yes in a teenager and upset way. If you are not agree with something told by ActionJackson then you need try to give your opinion on a normal way. But you prefer show no respect about opinion of other people you do not like. Other people has tried to debate with respect with normal discussion. Maybe you do not understand what a forum is, and you need to set up a blog only for yourself.
A troll is when people come to say how bad this plane is but without providing any argument to support its claims. ActionJackson showed elaborate opinions about what he thinks about the level of furtivity of this plane. If you do not agree, you can contrast that opinion by arguing.
This is a SU-57 thread, and is normal to talk about this airplane, and not only things you like. Have you been in a F-35 thread and things people told about this "millonaire and fat" airplane? It was told worst things. do you know what things was told by RT or Sputnik about this airplane? Or only do you look in one direction?
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 13th July 2018 at 14:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A few recent snippets from earlier postings in this thread:
"gutter journalism"
"condescending hit pieces against the su 57"
"a disinformation witch hunt"
"a disingenuous smear campaign motivated by a mix of poor losers attitude and blind sectarism"
"Western libel against the PAK-FA"
"media witchhunt against the su 57"
"Absolute libelous gutter trash journalism"
"The western media as usual are twisting the story to favour their agenda"
Some people (especially KGB) seem to be getting really worked up over the idea that an anti Su-57 campaign is being mounted. But no explanations are offered as to why defence journalists, defence academics, and some of our forum posters are taking part in this alleged campaign. Nor are we being told who is allegedly masterminding this conspiracy.
To my mind, the snippets I have cited are as silly as the claim in the old 'Soviet Military Review' magazine that there was an entire department in the Pentagon whose task was to write news material and magazine articles critical of the Soviet armed forces and their equipment. (This material was allegedly provided to Western defence magazines free of charge, to be published under the byeline of the magazines' own journalists.)
But one thing I will confidently predict is that the posters of these snippets are not defence journalists or defence academics, and have almost certainly never met a member of these professions, let alone discussed such conspiracy theories with them.
I will be off to the Farnborough Air Show next week. My schedule is filling with briefings on various subjects, but so far I have not been offered any briefings on the Su-57. Perhaps the masterminds who run the anti Su-57 campaign have overlooked me....