SU-57 deployed to Syria

botsing · by **botsing** » 26 Feb 2018, 15:39

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

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 26 Feb 2018, 16:46

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.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 26 Feb 2018, 16:57

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.

milosh · by **milosh** » 26 Feb 2018, 17:59

juretrn wrote:Do the Russkies not have this?

No they don't have. Sensors were tested on Su-57 prototypes.

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 26 Feb 2018, 18:16

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.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 26 Feb 2018, 20:44

Then an F-22 can fly above it inverted.. Don't forget the Polaroid.

:salute:

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 26 Feb 2018, 22:01

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

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 26 Feb 2018, 22:22

lol.. China's got one

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 26 Feb 2018, 22:35

I thought the russian's use a flanker like a cat bird, test engines and radar in them.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 26 Feb 2018, 22:54

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.

neptune · by **neptune** » 26 Feb 2018, 23:25

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!

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 27 Feb 2018, 01:14

A little more range but fewer features.. meh.

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 27 Feb 2018, 04:20

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 · by **SpudmanWP** » 27 Feb 2018, 04:37

IIRC the array of the -81 is of better tech.

If the only difference was dish size then the only benefit would be a slightly longer range.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 27 Feb 2018, 04:44

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