Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 9 months

Posts: 73

@Spud

I wasn't talking about big long wave radars, but about S-400 radars, they are X-band and maybe S-band (didn't check). And yes this isn't 1990s but AN/TPS-70 was 1970s radar made by late 1960s tech so in 1990s it was old tech and it need ONE hour to move, we reduce that a lot but same thing apply for S-300/400 mobile radars, 15 minutes is average time but in case of war with good crew it could done lot faster.

@mig-31bm

-18dBsm without RAM, but yet it was tracked with S-125 from +20km (SNR-125 radar), one crew member even mentioned +50km, he was operator of P-15 radar in tv interview. I wouldn't mentioned what Zoltan said becuase his statements aren't back up by other members of battery (he said they tracked F-117 while it was still in Bosnia).

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 376

"In case you have not noticed, in their statement, the Chinese said "metaphorically" instead of "literally". They were using a metaphor, talking figuratively, for example: when they say "Usain bolt is lightning fast" that only mean he can run very fast, not "therotically he can run at 220,000,000 miles per hour""

This went way over your head. china's concept of hitting another needle is a theory hence theoretically speaking since they have to complete the system.

"Let me guess, plasma shield cruise missiles and 100 km AESA on tank are product of your imagination?"

A 2nd F-16.net user. http://www.trud.ru/article/17-03-2016/1335410_opasnee_kalibra_rossija_nachala_ispytanie_giperzvukovoj_rakety_tsirkon.html " The head of the rocket is heated, and a plasma cloud forms around it. Missiles moving at such speeds are almost impossible to intercept: control systems have too little time to make decisions, and interceptors can not catch up with Zirkon and can only be used on collision course. The vortex of the plasma, among other things, absorbs radio waves, and as a result, the rocket that went into hypersound is covered by an invisibility cloak: the radar stops seeing it"

Google translate is working slow so here, "На «Армате», как и на истребителе Т-50, будет установлена новейшая радиолокационная станция с активной фазированной антенной решетки (АФАР). Таких решений ни на одном танке мира нет. Система способна одновременно вести до 40 динамических и до 25 аэродинамических целей, контролировать территорию в радиусе до 100 километров и в автоматическом режиме уничтожать цели размером до 0,3 метра. Благодаря наличию АФАР, «Армата» позиционируется, как универсальная ударная машина сухопутных войск, включающая в себя полноценный тактический ракетный комплекс, зенитную систему противовоздушной обороны, комплекс армейской разведки и целеуказания и собственно танк.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201411211239-uvb5.htm

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 999

This went way over your head. china's concept of hitting another needle is a theory hence theoretically speaking since they have to complete the system.

It isn't a theory. Your English is bad, simple. They said:

The cutting-edge missile's control systems need to be extremely efficient and accurate, said Wang Mengyi, deputy head of the Second Academy's General Design Department and former leader of the laboratory.
"Metaphorically put, the mission of these control systems is to guide a needle to fly 1,000 kilometers to pierce the eye of another needle," he said. "For researchers from Zhang Yiqun Laboratory, their mission is to turn this seemingly impossible task into reality."

Wang said control systems are mainly tasked with working out a missile's best trajectory and making sure it can hit its target.


"Let me guess, plasma shield cruise missiles and 100 km AESA on tank are product of your imagination?"
A 2nd F-16.net user. http://www.trud.ru/article/17-03-201...y_tsirkon.html " The head of the rocket is heated, and a plasma cloud forms around it. Missiles moving at such speeds are almost impossible to intercept: control systems have too little time to make decisions, and interceptors can not catch up with Zirkon and can only be used on collision course. The vortex of the plasma, among other things, absorbs radio waves, and as a result, the rocket that went into hypersound is covered by an invisibility cloak: the radar stops seeing it"

A missile guided by radio wave allegedly coated by a layer of plasma that absorb all radiowave. Do you see the issue?.
Oh where is the tank AESA with 100 km detection range ?
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 376

"It isn't a theory. Your English is bad, simple. They said:"

Here I will make it more simple. There is a 1000km radar that can hit needles. Is the concept a theory if it has not been proven?

Theory, "a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based."

"A missile guided by radio wave allegedly coated by a layer of plasma that absorb all radiowave."

As someone explained to me, "It is physically possible for the radio waves to go through , providing their frequency exceeds that of the electrons in the plasma; this goes for the missile’s seeker and any defending radar stations too. Some of the energy will be lost but with a high enough output some of the energy will get through. Ground based or even aircraft based radars will always have the capacity for a stronger power output over a missile due to mass constraints, the power source in particular. Low frequency radars will still be reflected by the plasma, but as you already know these lack the precision to guide missiles." Some guy with a bachelor's in physics on quora.

If they are working on it I guess their persistence on the project makes it seem it is possible.

2nd paragraph explains the tank do you need google translate?

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 2,014

-18dBsm without RAM, but yet it was tracked with S-125 from +20km (SNR-125 radar), one crew member even mentioned +50km, he was operator of P-15 radar in tv interview. I wouldn't mentioned what Zoltan said becuase his statements aren't back up by other members of battery (he said they tracked F-117 while it was still in Bosnia).

Pay attention, RCS is - 18dBsm in frontal arcs between 0.4-2Ghz. F-117 was tracked by P-18 which operate in VHF aka 30-300 Mhz.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 2,014

is that off of lockheed and if it is should my trust be that easy to give like the sudden RCS change on both 5th gen aircrafts?

It didn't came from lockheed Martin
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 376

@mig-31bm

the 2nd source was from General hostage stating F-35 stealthier, the 1st source if I remember correctly the airforce stating both 5th gens previously before being golf ball and steel marble. Shania explained that the F-35 had a change in material, but a drastic 500 times decrease in size is hard to believe. I believe ActionJackson stated the F-35 was now the size of a Pea about a year ago from a thread saying .00001m2 if I recall correctly.

Member for

4 years 11 months

Posts: 29

panzerfeist1: they propably dont know rcs of F-35 in 2005, it was estimate or measured on aircraft which is not representative of today F-35.

BTW you can believe in 100km AESA radar on ARMATA.... So you are capable believe in anything...

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 2,014

the 2nd source was from General hostage stating F-35 stealthier, the 1st source if I remember correctly the airforce stating both 5th gens previously before being golf ball and steel marble. Shania explained that the F-35 had a change in material, but a drastic 500 times decrease in size is hard to believe. I believe ActionJackson stated the F-35 was now the size of a Pea about a year ago from a thread saying .00001m2 if I recall correctly.

500 times is 25dB different.
Aspect and frequency are important, if you looks at the picture earlier, rcs at offbore spike is18 dBsm while frontal rcs is - 18dBsm. Total variation of 36 dB which is about 4000 times. For frequency, frontal rcs at 0.1 Ghz is 0 dBsm, at 1 Ghz is - 18dBsm, and rcs will down even further at 8 Ghz and higher.
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 376

@Shania

"BTW you can believe in 100km AESA radar on ARMATA.... So you are capable believe in anything..." I was skeptical about the stealth claim because of different quotes and wanting to know what changed over time to get such values or not. But thanks for clearing that up.

@mig-31bm thanks as well.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 2,014


BTW you can believe in 100km AESA radar on ARMATA.... So you are capable believe in anything

Confirmatory bias and extreme nationalism is a bad combination
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 376

@mig-31bm

"Confirmatory bias and extreme nationalism is a bad combination "

I am just quoting their statements. I was even going to mention a tank with an attached drone called pterodactyl.

Member for

12 years 9 months

Posts: 73

@mig-31bm

Pay attention, RCS is - 18dBsm in frontal arcs between 0.4-2Ghz. F-117 was tracked by P-18 which operate in VHF aka 30-300 Mhz.

This is common myth. Radar which first detect was P-15 and then with second radar which guide missiles (SNR-125). This is what SAM crew members confirm couple times and this is logical if you check how S-125 works.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 4,731


@Spud
Sorry, but the Russians simply cannot outspend the West in the areas of R&D to claim technical superiority.

Russia always outspends in the fields it choose to compete and those are really hard scientific fields.
It takes nearly 8 years of combined Ukranain and Western engineers work to produce nuclear fuel for 45% of reactors if everything go according to plan for practically outdated reactors.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/20/business/ukrainian-nuclear-reactor-now-using-non-russian-fuel-first-time/#.W2sFoChKjIU
From 2021, the number of reactors with Westinghouse fuel will increase to seven, the company said.
Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

16 years 5 months

Posts: 1,344

"BTW you can believe in 100km AESA radar on ARMATA.... So you are capable believe in anything..."

The estimated range of detection of a helicopter or aircraft, the radar means of a tank "Armata", 20 - 25 km. This power allows you to intercept cannon shells at a range of up to 50 meters

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261975[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

22 years

Posts: 5,396

"If it radiates, it dies"

Life is short if your weapon system is as obvious on the battlefield as a strobe light at midnight.

A swarm attack would overwhelm any active defense.

Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 6,441

How would the small drones know if its just a static strobe light(decoy), or acuall weapon system?

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

13 years

Posts: 5,197

MMW and IIR sensors with a little SAL thrown in for good measure.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 2,014

This is common myth. Radar which first detect was P-15 and then with second radar which guide missiles (SNR-125). This is what SAM crew members confirm couple times and this is logical if you check how S-125 works

All sources I can find about the incident said they used the P-18 to detect/track the F-117, I have seen the interview but I don't think they mentioned the system used is P-15. So if you have some contrary evidence please show.

The estimated range of detection of a helicopter or aircraft, the radar means of a tank "Armata", 20 - 25 km. This power allows you to intercept cannon shells at a range of up to 50 meters

That make absolutely no sense. If radar cross section of a cannon shell is 0.001 m2 and it is detected by ARMATA's radar from 50 meters away, by radar equation we know the same radar will detect an aircraft with RCS= 10 m2 from 508 meters away, you just can't get the "100 km" value and we haven't touch the cooling, aperture and clutter issues. Logically, why anyone want their hard kill APS radar to have long range?

Member for

12 years 9 months

Posts: 73

@mig-31bm

All sources I can find about the incident said they used the P-18 to detect/track the F-117, I have seen the interview but I don't think they mentioned the system used is P-15. So if you have some contrary evidence please show.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-125-Neva.html

P-15 is part of S-125 system. P-18 isn't. P-15 is target acquisition radar, SNR-125 is missile guidance radar(X-band radar), SNR-125 locked F-117 for more then 15km, info about that is book written by member of SAM crew which was there when F-117 was downed.

So no way P-18 could be used to down F-117 and I don't see why folks constant mentioning VHF radars. They don't guide missiles, they could only guide fighters on VLO targets. This is very important for Russia or China but for weaker countries it isn't.