SU-57 deployed to Syria
marsavian wrote:
To quote garrya:
garrya wrote:The L band transmitter/receiver on PAK-FA is not a radar but an IFF system, a L band of that size will have horizontal angular accuracy of around 20-22 degrees and with only one line of T/R modules it wont be able to determine height either, pretty much useless as a radar
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Re L-Band array, I don't think anyone is expecting any more of it than just a radar early warning indication to cue the other more precise sensors. If it was just for IFF why have two of them spaced quite far apart ? It may also be used for EW jamming purposes in this popular communication band e.g. datalinks.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
- Location: California
An AESA based IFF makes sense so that it can query a potential contact without broadcasting a signal in every direction. Having them on the wings allows it to do so over a wider arc. Spacing makes no difference.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
marsavian wrote:Instrumented test ranges don't have live F-22s flying around. They probably want to see at what range the main/rear AESA and IRST and wing L-band pick up the F-22 and the quality of the tracks. This is Su-57's most important mission, to try to detect and handle American stealth fighters.
Mission: Poke the Bear
When satellite shows the Su-57's are in the air, launch hundreds of MALDs set to a varying low RCS settings toward the Su-57's if they react we know they can track small objects, also it would just be fun to watch them Sh*t there pants.
milosh wrote:juretrn wrote:Do the Russkies not have this?
No they don't have. Sensors were tested on Su-57 prototypes.
I always when people tell me how smart and practical Russians are but CATB never crossed their minds
Choose Crews
I thought the russian's use a flanker like a cat bird, test engines and radar in them.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
- Location: California
The point of a Catbird-type airframe is the the avionics are separate from the operation of the aircraft and a problem in one will not affect the other. Also, extra engineers & equipment can be installed to monitor the systems that simply cannot be done in fighter.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
SpudmanWP wrote:The point of a Catbird-type airframe is the the avionics are separate from the operation of the aircraft and a problem in one will not affect the other. Also, extra engineers & equipment can be installed to monitor the systems that simply cannot be done in fighter.
....be interesting to see an AN/APG-77 "dish" fitted to the AN/APG-81 computer on the CATB!
If the backend was the same wouldn't the features be the same, just benefit from the larger array and potentially higher peak power?
SpudmanWP wrote:The point of a Catbird-type airframe is the the avionics are separate from the operation of the aircraft and a problem in one will not affect the other. Also, extra engineers & equipment can be installed to monitor the systems that simply cannot be done in fighter.
It can also stay aloft for a good while
Choose Crews
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests