Russian AESAs - what gives?

[eloise]

AN/APG-81 tracks receding tail-on targets at over 80 nautical miles away. That's incredible range as generally they are far more difficult to detect and track than head-on targets. For example Russians give Bars radar 140 km detection range against MiG-29 in head-on situation and only 60 km in tail-on situation. Using similar conversion, we can calculate that AN/APG-81 would be able to track incoming head-on targets at 350 km range or more. In that case the detection range of AN/APG-81 is close to 500 km... And because this is full volume search, this could be increased significantly by narrowing the search volume as done with Irbis-E numbers (increase of some 80-100 percent) . So, clearly AN/APG-81 outranges Irbis-E and all Russian AESAs with huge margin...

I bet he will try to argue that head on and tail on are the same for radar, and when you try to explain to him, he will just ignore it

[arian]

the detection range of AN/APG-81 is close to 500 km...

APG-81 has 500km range. Confirmed. USA STRONK!!!

But can it recognize a human face's expressions at 400km? That's the real issue of importance.

[terrygedran]

The Ground Master 400 is a mobile radar system manufactured by ThalesRaytheonSystems. GM 400 is a fully digital 3D active electronically scanned array .
S-band, 3D AESA Radar

[terrygedran]

Irbis-E and ES-05 have a wide field of regard because they are on movable plate. But the disadvantage of that is higher RCS and harder control of signature, so that why even PAK-FA abandon it.

The use of H035 Irbis radar is impossible because of the discrepancy in dimensions.

[wewuzkangz]

@Eloise

Come on buddy i came late from work and you have to give me all of these things to debunk for you.

You don't debunk sh*t, just repeat false information over and over again

Where the hell are you getting this from? I only stated max ranges and said that the results are the same with combat ranges. Meaning the aircraft with long ferry ranges have longer combat ranges as well in comparison?

You are so thick, it is unbelievable
Your source gave a maximum range for F-35 as 1,667km while according to Manufacturer, its combat radius alone is 760 nm or 1407 km
combat radius mean you have to fly twice, to the target and back 1407*2 = 2814 km, in other word manufacturer combat radius > your max range by over 1000 km. If you still don't see the stupidity in that then no one can help you.

Your mixing apples with oranges when comparing L-band to RWRs if I wanted to compare anything to the RWRs that would be the himalayas smart skin. L-band allows to attack datalink transmissions RWR's according to the definition itself detects radar emissions from radars.

Iam talking about the listening part, any RWR can listen to datalink, there is nothing special about the L band array, for jamming you have systems like ASQ-239, APG-81 and ALE-70

Anti-jam, everything is claiming to be anti-jam on its equipment does it entirely mean that it is still unjammable? Satellite electronics are pretty sensitive

So you don't know what is Home on Jam ? it is a mode when missiles changed to passive and fly at the jammer, do you know how anti radar missiles operate ? home on jam is just like that but it only active when missiles are jammed and can't uses their normal sensor

All I need to do is present you a picture to tell you where you screwed up on this one https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ts.svg.png ....BUT....To be on the safe side if this picture does not explain where you screwed up than I will. OK so tell me why would they have S-500s, Nudols, krasukha-4s all of a sudden target LEO's instead of MEOs? The answer is simple LEO's give constant coverage and send a transmission of that information to MEOs such as GPS. Tell me would you well lets say launched a cruise missile using GPS navigations would you want your missiles to get constant satellite footprint coverage of where you targets are or have them wait every 11 hours because of a MEO orbit? You know alot of things can happen in 11 hours?

You think there is a single GPS orbiting earth ????
There are over 72 GPS satellite have been launched, 30 retired, 2 failure so that give over 40 GPS on orbit at any given time, they dont have to wait 11 hours for any area because once a satellite fly away from an area , another one will take its place in coverage, neither S-500 or Nudol can even hope to reach GPS satellite orbit

Yes the k-77m has many means of navigation but some in which case others dont have.

No it doesnot, it uses a radar seeker with INS and datalink, like any medium-long range air to air missiles

F-35 currently has an APS says dispenser called an/ale-70 . But in all honesty you must mean AN/AAQ-24 Nemesis which was introduced back in 2005 if it is that great than why an/ale-70 which was introduced back in 2014

ALE-70 is a towed decoy, used to deceive radar guided missiles, like this

The laser Jammer from Northrup Grumman is intended to deceive infrared guided missiles

http://aviationweek.com/defense/northro ... ammer-f-35

They are not in any way, shape or form similar.

and post 2022 it will have a high energy laser over 100kW....AND the T-50 uses this https://www.rt.com/news/362672-radio-el ... on-russia/

Too bad, there is not a single plan to integrate that EMP weapon on T-50, by contrast, they are working to put laser weapon on F-35.

For your information , US also working on EMP weapon to put on F-35, unlike the Russian counterpart, this one already been tested




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-e ... le_Project
http://nationalpost.com/g00/news/how-bo ... om.vn%252F

Jokes aside explain to me how a 100 KW weapon will work on such a small aircraft like the F-35? F-22 at best with radar can go 20 kw?

On the B version lift fan uses a clutch-connected drive-shaft to power it via the F-35's primary Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, this same void could be filled with a solid state laser, accompanied by a pair of operational ABC turrets, mounted conformally on the top and on the bottom of the jet, where the lift fan doors currently are installed.If the F-35B's lift-fan were removed, its main engine could be tapped to power a high-energy laser in a similar fashion as its lift fan already does.In short,power could be stored in a capacitor, a fuel tank (in the case of the F-35A & C) or the F-35B's lift-fan could be removed and a laser could be installed that could be powered just through an enhanced version of the F-35's integrated power-pack



http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockhe ... 1635210849
They already put a small one on AH-64

"The LaWS was to be installed on USS Ponce in summer 2014 for a 12-month trial deployment. The Navy spent about $40 million over the past six years on research, development, and testing of the laser weapon. It will be directed to targets by the Phalanx CIWS radar. If tests go well, the Navy could deploy a laser weapon operationally between 2017 and 2021 with an effective range of 1 mi (1.6 km; 0.87 nmi). The exact level of power the LaWS will use is unknown but estimated between 15–50 kW for engaging small aircraft and high-speed boats. ............It was stated recently 2 seconds a drone will get shot down. air to air missiles are usually mach 4 to mach 5 which will cover a mile in 1 second. A naval boat is having problems just increasing range (not counting weather or clouds) yet you believe that a way under powered aircraft having a 100 KW device will work when there are lower estimates and difficulty with bigger military units using a much lesser KW weapon?

Range of laser weapon change with air density, for example this is the variation of their power on target vs distance ,at altitude of 30k feet

And below that source says it uses cell digital processing using cells to receive partial signals from aircraft once a full image is granted no guidance needed

So how do you imagine the missile guided to target without knowing target's direction, speed ??? ?

Meteor will soon have AESA can you put that into more detail?

Japan buy Meteor for their F-35, and since they already have AESA seeker on AAM-4B, they cooperate with MBDA to put that on Meteor
http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/japan ... r-guidance

It sounds,similiar to the APAA of the k-77m without the cell digital processing part

.
Cell processsing is mothing more than Marketing nonsense. The name of the seeker on K-77 is APAA short for Active Phased Array Antenna, in other words, it mean K77 use an AESA seeker. All AESA seeker has many elements and combine infromation from them together

Do you mean like the meteor missile will have its own radar than would that mean easier jamming so what will its AESA radar range be?

AIM-120, Meteor, K-77, R-77 ..etc all have their own radar, AESA seeker range will be longer than slotted array seeker range.

IIR is better? how this sh*t sounds like old school tech?

It sound like old school because you don't know a single thing about technology

which is why more or less one country ditched it

No one dicthed IIR, without IR seeker, you can say good bye to all IRST sensor

UV sounds like its more sensitive than infrared without me having to look at the spectrum I am sure I would be right lol.

You are terribly wrong

Not to be a goofball but those ranges show a greater or equal to range size? The OLS-35 provides a coverage of +/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation with a target acquisition range for non-afterburning aerial targets of 50 km facing up to target's front hemisphere and 90 km facing up to rear hemisphere. The laser rangefinder features a five-meter Circular Error Probable (CEP) and ranges up to 20 km for aerial targets and 30 km for targets on the ground. http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/OL ... 26001.aspx

Too bad for you but the range is less or equal not greater or equal, range is only 35 km against from head on target according to NIIPP aka the producer of the system

Again we can never be too sure with sources.

Funny you would say that, as soon as a source show performer of Russia equipments inadequate or high performer for US equipments, you immediately ignore or question it, but at the sametime choose to repeat over and over again nonsense as long as it fit your agenda

I had one telling that the OLS-50's QWIP technology

There is not a single offcial source that stated QWIP technology fro OLS-50

allows it to work in the 15 micron band spotting, missile flares and engine exhausts from 70 nautical miles away. If that was the case this would be its primary sensor than radar lol.

15 microns ? You mean the wavelength with zero transmission ?very funny. First a radar working in visual light like a torch, then 3D technology, and now infrared sensor that work in wavelength that cannot pass through atmosphere your ignorance never fail to amuse

public values? no that is not what I was talking about the values I received were from stated engineer or official claims. If Raytheon or KRET state RCS detection and ranges I am sure that they have accounted for noise to make an RCS determination correct?

For the last time, detection range will varied with probability of detection, that probably of detection will varied with SNR. Not all manufacturer use the same Probably of detection for radar detection range. How many time i need to repeat that simple fact?

Well actually to this day you have still not provided me anything with manufacture or article claims of the apg-81 yet you draw a conclusion at a failed attempt towards a chart that did not mention the an/apg-81.

I did but you choose to ignored it because it does not fit your agenda
deagel and APA said APG-81 has 1000 T/R elements, counting of real APG-81 radar aperture shows that it has 1676 T/R elements ,like it or not it is still a fact, your source is wrong by more than 50%


APA chart doesn't have APG_81 on it, but it is their attempt to estimate range of AESA with 1600 T/R modules, which coincidently similar amount that APG-81 has. If you want the range estimation, you have that, but you choose to ignored it since it is better than your beloved Irbis-E and that doesn't fit your agenda

depends on what T/R elements are being used. They have stated it along with other articles of the RCS if you cared

No they didn't, and APG-81 likely has the most advanced T/R modules for US fighter radar

@hornett

Dang it the next thing you know this sh*t will blow to 30 more responses its like the number here keeps growing?

"Saying one radar has 400 km detection range and another 150 km range is just dumb from technical PoV" lol lol lol That is not the consideration I have considered into account because I am talking about RCS in certain given ranges. Yes the an/apg-81 can have a 500km range but whats the RCS at that range??? I dont know if anyone has taken this into consideration but not trying treat anyone like morons. RCS values change with ranges does it not? That 150 km range is for that given RCS value of 1. But unless you have any data which you wont I bet that give the same RCS value at 500km. Hell I believe at 500km it is possible for that to spot a passenger plane with an RCS of 100.

Oh sweet it can track 23 targets just like what my deagel source stated. Guess some articles are to be taken into consideration. 80 nautical miles hmm that sounds like the 150km range of an RCS of 1 from a deagel source as well. BARS is not my concern but Irbis unless I feel like comparing f-16s to mig-29s. "Using similar conversion, we can calculate that AN/APG-81 would be able to track incoming head-on targets at 350 km range or more. In that case the detection range of AN/APG-81 is close to 500 km..."...........Not only am I going to ask for sources but will give the same question i did with your 200km example....What RCS values are given for these ranges? For all I know at 350km it can be an AWACs or a f-15 which can still count as a head on target but with high RCS. T-50 is equipped with a 400km missile to shoot down AWACs at that given range and it can still count as a head on target that you are reffering to. Well you can do me a favor and state RCS estimates at given ranges with sources please. So we finally get something going in this forum.

@ eloise

Sigh....I said the radius of operation was at 1082km got it from 2 different sources which I have stated it seems you always talk about manufacturers but never giving a source which is nothing new by now. Comprehension is not your strong suit. Instead of making this hard on yourself like the other guy give a source state RCS ranges and hell even aircraft ranges with lockheed or northrup if that doesnt do than state multiple articles I have stated one from deagel and another one recently that gave me my range.

Nice picture, yet no description of it explaining attacking datalink or netcentric comms. Your nuking this.

Christ make this grammar portion a little better. you 1st stated seperate ideas anti-jam and home on jam but get bitchy when I have not stated home on jam? Heard this can be defeated with offboard decoy/jammer systems.

Well to correct you again as usual there are 24 GPS satellites look at the chart than look at the 4th bulleted point.

please read the below paragraph part lol http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 1.aspx..... Even an R-77 uses active radar seekers http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 22001.aspx. So why mention the APAA using cells like its a new technology if its R-77 already incorperates what the meteor and aim-120D uses?

Dispensers and decoys are considered APS as well. I just find it odd having decoy added later if DIRCM is for infrared and BAE system Barricuda can be used to jam active radar guidance.

hard to still believe if a naval ship with a lesser KW power is having difficulties trying to atleast get a range of 1 mile in 2017-2021 estimates. But sorry for doubting until I found out about the Sokol Eshelon. Rather if laser plannings are done successfully this is what I see now. https://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2 ... uns_480157 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 Basically the A-60 these seem to be really large aircraft that have tested its use. Sec of defense Gates summarized, -"The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."......FYI chemical lasers operate in the megawatt power scale.

"So how do you imagine the missile guided to target without knowing target's direction, speed?"......Each cell receives only a part of the signal, but once digitally processed, the information from all cells is summarized into a full picture. With a full picture the K-77M missile immediately responds to sharp turns of the target making interception inevitable." Well the description does happen to take account of target direction and speed. Guess thats information for them to know only from other countries grasping the idea of how it exactly works dont you say?

AESA seeker sounds like active homing which is in every aim-120D, meteor and r-77 description.

"AESA seeker range will be longer than slotted array seeker range." advantages of this please?

"you can say good bye to all IRST sensor? I was not talking about IRST but APS detection

UV band operates in the shorter wave higher frequency ranges than infrared taking account of emissions and surround missiles speeds and ranges for a laser based solution.

And your lack of comprehension has no bounds of ending lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared works in ols-50 works in the long wave infrared meaning detection of cooler targets than the every day reliance. Unless you can come up with any IRST with QWIP and infrared scale.

arrows point away from a number like this, "<35 with equal below that arrow,MEANS "is equal or greater than" basic 4th grade arithmetic you cant seem to understand.

"Funny you would say that, as soon as a source show performer of Russia equipments inadequate or high performer for US equipments, you immediately ignore or question it," Whats wrong with questioning RCS and ranges of radars. You should provide me some source comparisons with these radars 1st.

"No they didn't, and APG-81 likely has the most advanced T/R modules for US fighter radar" please provide me specifications of it...Tracking, azimuth and elevation coverage, engagement of targets, RCS at what ranges? Than compare it to Irbis or even later models of zhuk radar until more info is provided on the FGA-50, N036, ROFAR and now I am hearing about a N079 indian version than a N050 version.

But a question to extend this. Technology has shown electronic items becoming smaller? Out of curiosity do we have any aircraft radars as thin as the fga-35(3d) in size? it is estimated their latest radar is at 100kg the an/apg-81 is about 220kg. They said for their newest info is from 2016 that they reduced the weight of about 50% and offered better performance than their previous radars. This 100kg radar is the zhuk am/ or FGA-50 as a further evolution than the fga-35(3d)......Does weight performance matter in electronic tech? i compared the apg-81 to fga-50 because they are both from small aircraft.

[wewuzkangz]

What info I am looking for in this forum PERFECT EXAMPLE. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/S ... dars-2.jpg it states RCS of 3 at 130km it radar does not look like a fga-35(3d) or a fga-50.....FGA-50 or zhuk-MSA states 50% more improvement compared to zhuk-ae models to a 260km range weight 100kg http://www.janes.com/article/65271/airs ... 35-fighter. So this radar weighs less than 120kg compared to the an/apg-81. Estimates RCS of 1 at 150km for apg-81 RCS of 3 at 260km range if I was to obviously convert this using Australia air force radar graph no one here will like those results... So someone provide APG-81s value at 260km like what happens to RCS values of it when raised at 110km and what happens to the fga-50 RCS detection when dropped to 110km.........Its things like these that excite me so for now goodnight. I know I will get alot of positive responses the next day lol.

[terrygedran]

"Too bad then because both K77 and R37 are guided by radar "

R-77P / RVV-PE - Passive homing model.
R-77T / RVV-TE - Infrared homing model

", even that time two is already 1520 nm (2815 km) ways longer than your so called max range"

1520 nm =Ferry range

[eloise]

Sigh....I said the radius of operation was at 1082km got it from 2 different sources which I have stated it seems you always talk about manufacturers but never giving a source which is nothing new by now.

Never giving a source? are you retarded ? or can you not read Lockheed Martin at the corner of the photo?

Comprehension is not your strong suit. Instead of making this hard on yourself like the other guy give a source state RCS ranges and hell even aircraft ranges with lockheed or northrup if that doesnt do than state multiple articles I have stated one from deagel and another one recently that gave me my range.

Comprehension ? You talking about comprehension How f**king ironic, the guy who doesn't understand how any sensor work , keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again, talking about comprehension.

Nice picture, yet no description of it explaining attacking datalink or netcentric comms. Your nuking this.

, Do you actually understand how a jammer work ?. It getting so tiring explain basic information to you

Christ make this grammar portion a little better. you 1st stated seperate ideas anti-jam and home on jam but get bitchy when I have not stated home on jam? Heard this can be defeated with offboard decoy/jammer systems.

Yes home on jam can be defeated by offboard jammer system. But in that case, you have to stop the jamming system you are using, and only use the offboard one, otherwise the missiles will keep flying toward you aka the most powerful source of jamming signal.
There are 2 choice now, either the offboard jammer is too weak and will not be sufficient to jam the GPS, or it is very strong but then power comes with cost and size. Nevermind the fact missiles received guide from datalink too.

Well to correct you again as usual there are 24 GPS satellites look at the chart than look at the 4th bulleted point.

As usual, you don't correct sh*t but just repaet nonsense idea again and again. 24 satellite is the minimum number of satellites for a full constellation GPS , but the current number excess that. Nevertheless, GPS doesnot need to wait 11 hours and Nodol or S-500 doesnot have the required energy to reach the orbit of GPS satellite

please read the below paragraph part lol http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 1.aspx..... Even an R-77 uses active radar seekers http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons ... 22001.aspx. So why mention the APAA using cells like its a new technology if its R-77 already incorperates what the meteor and aim-120D uses?

Because APAA is an AESA, the radar seeker on R-77 and AIM-120 are either slotted array or parabolic antenna

Dispensers and decoys are considered APS as well. I just find it odd having decoy added later if DIRCM is for infrared and BAE system Barricuda can be used to jam active radar guidance.

The decoy is used against HoJ missiles

hard to still believe if a naval ship with a lesser KW power is having difficulties trying to atleast get a range of 1 mile in 2017-2021 estimates. But sorry for doubting until I found out about the Sokol Eshelon. Rather if laser plannings are done successfully this is what I see now. https://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2 ... uns_480157 and

Funny how as soon as you realized there are Russian counterpart, all your doubt about power and efficiency of system just gone out of the window because it fit your Russian Stronk agenda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 Basically the A-60 these seem to be really large aircraft that have tested its use. Sec of defense Gates summarized, -"The reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane right now to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire."......FYI chemical lasers operate in the megawatt power scale.

YAL-1 was meant to destroy ballistic missiles, and it done that from over 500 km that is entirely different from the laser that will go on F-35

So how do you imagine the missile guided to target without knowing target's direction, speed?"......Each cell receives only a part of the signal, but once digitally processed, the information from all cells is summarized into a full picture. With a full picture the K-77M missile immediately responds to sharp turns of the target making interception inevitable." Well the description does happen to take account of target direction and speed. Guess thats information for them to know only from other countries grasping the idea of how it exactly works dont you say?

I cannot believe this, how can someone have access to internet and still so thick. Let put it this way, APAA is an AESA, all AESA have multiple elements and it will group signal from all elements together to get a full information of target. But anytime the cells ( elements) stop transmitting, you will not receive any signal from target. No signal = no range , no speed , no aspect => no interception.How hard is it to understand that ? Do you imagine the seeker transmit and turned off immediately after it have the picture? Do you somehow believe APAA is a mean to predict the future ?

AESA seeker sounds like active homing which is in every aim-120D, meteor and r-77 description.

all this discussion and now you telling me you don't understand the different between AESA and a mechanical radar ?

AESA seeker range will be longer than slotted array seeker range." advantages of this please?

You do not understand why the ability to see longer is good ????????

you can say good bye to all IRST sensor? I was not talking about IRST but APS detection

Doesn't matter, think, if UV is better than IIR then how come IRST sensor doesn't use UV ?
Why did US changed from AAR-54 ( which use UV) to DAS which is IIR ?

UV band operates in the shorter wave higher frequency ranges than infrared taking account of emissions and surround missiles speeds and ranges for a laser based solution.

Firstly, UV sensor doesnot provide range, just like IIR , it is a passive sensor
Secondly, shorter wave, higher frequency mean higher temperature is required, which mean UV sensor can only see very very hot object

And your lack of comprehension has no bounds of ending lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared works in ols-50 works in the long wave infrared meaning detection of cooler targets than the every day reliance. Unless you can come up with any IRST with QWIP and infrared scale

First, give me a single official source that say OLS-50 uses QWIP
Second, OLS-50 doesnot operate at 15 microns, why ? because that wavelength has zero transmission through atmosphere

arrows point away from a number like this, "<35 with equal below that arrow,MEANS "is equal or greater than" basic 4th grade arithmetic you cant seem to understand.

You are either not pass primary school yet or you are trolling, no one is this dumb
So you telling me if i write X < 35 that mean X is greater than 35 ?

Whats wrong with questioning RCS and ranges of radars. You should provide me some source comparisons with these radars 1st.

I already did, i even go as far as explain to you why your source is nonsense

please provide me specifications of it...Tracking, azimuth and elevation coverage, engagement of targets, RCS at what ranges?

Provide specification ??? can you provide specifications for N036 ?

I was to obviously convert this using Australia air force radar graph no one here will like those results...

No one will like it because APA can't even get the element counts correct

Too bad then because both K77 and R37 are guided by radar "

R-77P / RVV-PE - Passive homing model.
R-77T / RVV-TE - Infrared homing model

and how many R-77P, R-77T in production? Can you give me a photo of R-77T on any aircraft ? ( should be easily noitifiable with a blund cone)

, even that time two is already 1520 nm (2815 km) ways longer than your so called max range"

1520 nm =Ferry range

No, it isn't. It is air to air combat radius*2, see the top graph

[juretrn]

This is pure gold.
Only believes lasers are viable when the Russians do it.
Comparing the requirements of YAL-1 to those of the future F-35 self-defense laser.
Not wanting to accept 760 nm (1407 km) combat radius because reasons.
Asking what's the advantage of longer missile seeker range.
Wants exact specs of top-of-the-line radar T/R elements.
ROFL.

[eloise]

This is pure gold.
Only believes lasers are viable when the Russians do it.
Comparing the requirements of YAL-1 to those of the future F-35 self-defense laser.
Not wanting to accept 760 nm (1407 km) combat radius because reasons.
Asking what's the advantage of longer missile seeker range.
Wants exact specs of top-of-the-line radar T/R elements.
ROFL.

You forgot this gem

arrows point away from a number like this, "< 35 with equal below that arrow,MEANS "is equal or greater than

Top notch Mathematician

[hornetfinn]

"Saying one radar has 400 km detection range and another 150 km range is just dumb from technical PoV" lol lol lol That is not the consideration I have considered into account because I am talking about RCS in certain given ranges. Yes the an/apg-81 can have a 500km range but whats the RCS at that range??? I dont know if anyone has taken this into consideration but not trying treat anyone like morons. RCS values change with ranges does it not? That 150 km range is for that given RCS value of 1. But unless you have any data which you wont I bet that give the same RCS value at 500km. Hell I believe at 500km it is possible for that to spot a passenger plane with an RCS of 100.

Oh sweet it can track 23 targets just like what my deagel source stated. Guess some articles are to be taken into consideration. 80 nautical miles hmm that sounds like the 150km range of an RCS of 1 from a deagel source as well. BARS is not my concern but Irbis unless I feel like comparing f-16s to mig-29s. "Using similar conversion, we can calculate that AN/APG-81 would be able to track incoming head-on targets at 350 km range or more. In that case the detection range of AN/APG-81 is close to 500 km..."...........Not only am I going to ask for sources but will give the same question i did with your 200km example....What RCS values are given for these ranges? For all I know at 350km it can be an AWACs or a f-15 which can still count as a head on target but with high RCS. T-50 is equipped with a 400km missile to shoot down AWACs at that given range and it can still count as a head on target that you are reffering to. Well you can do me a favor and state RCS estimates at given ranges with sources please. So we finally get something going in this forum.

LOL, that was from very early test of AN/APG-81, that was made 11 years ago on a BAC-1-11 test aircraft. So you think they tested it to maximum performance then or would show the full performance results in public video? That's just absurd claim. Let's use this for Irbis-E then:



Here we have proof that Irbis-E can track only one single target. Besides here the tracking range is only about 100 km away and only when it's head-on target. Clearly AN/APG-81 outranges Irbis-E by wide margin...

Besides that result showed that it could fully track receding targets at well over 80 nautical miles range, whereas your source claims that 81 nautical miles is the max detection range. Or course as eloise said, there are number of very big errors in your source. If you knew anything about radar tech, you'd know that max tracking performance for head-on (incoming) targets is about 60-80 percent of the detection range (depending on mode and detection criterias used). Max detection and also tracking range for receding targets is much shorter since the doppler shift is much smaller and thus the target is harder to pick up from background noise. As I've proven with Russian Bars radar (source being the actual manufacturer of said radar), the detection range against receding targets is only about 43 percent compared to same target in head-on situation. In any case, AN/APG-81 definitely has far longer detection range than 150 km against regular 1-3 square meter RCS target. I also see no way how Irbis-E or N036 could have longer effective range.

UV band operates in the shorter wave higher frequency ranges than infrared taking account of emissions and surround missiles speeds and ranges for a laser based solution.

And your lack of comprehension has no bounds of ending lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared works in ols-50 works in the long wave infrared meaning detection of cooler targets than the every day reliance. Unless you can come up with any IRST with QWIP and infrared scale.

LOL, you have zero knowledge about IR or UV technology. I love how you first claim here that UV is great because it uses shorter wavelenght than IR and next sentence claim that OLS-50 is great because it uses longer wavelength. Please educate yourself about IR technology. Why not start here:
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... l-systems/
http://www.flirmedia.com/MMC/CVS/Tech_N ... 005_EN.pdf
https://www.ida.org/idamedia/Corporate/ ... d-4642.pdf

Sure LWIR has better performance against very cool targets, but generally MWIR is better in high-end (cooled sensors, expensive optics) applications. MWIR has higher resolution (about twice better), higher contrast and sees better in moist and warm environments.

Like this:

In perfect condition, MWIR can see 2.5 times as far as LWIR sensor of similar aperture size, MWIR will perform much better than LWIR especially in high humidity condition.

At sea level to several km altitude, MWIR has significantly better transmittance over other wavelenghts. At high altitudes the difference is small, but MWIR is generally superior especially against targets against ground where the higher thermal contrast is serious advantage. There is also the problem with clouds with they emit LWIR radiance themselves and targets are much harder to see against clouds with LWIR sensors than MWIR ones.

Btw, please show any credible source that OLS-50 uses QWIP and LWIR technology. Besides, then you can show us how QWIP is somehow great technology compared to other detector types...

"No they didn't, and APG-81 likely has the most advanced T/R modules for US fighter radar" please provide me specifications of it...Tracking, azimuth and elevation coverage, engagement of targets, RCS at what ranges? Than compare it to Irbis or even later models of zhuk radar until more info is provided on the FGA-50, N036, ROFAR and now I am hearing about a N079 indian version than a N050 version.

But a question to extend this. Technology has shown electronic items becoming smaller? Out of curiosity do we have any aircraft radars as thin as the fga-35(3d) in size? it is estimated their latest radar is at 100kg the an/apg-81 is about 220kg. They said for their newest info is from 2016 that they reduced the weight of about 50% and offered better performance than their previous radars. This 100kg radar is the zhuk am/ or FGA-50 as a further evolution than the fga-35(3d)......Does weight performance matter in electronic tech? i compared the apg-81 to fga-50 because they are both from small aircraft.

Show us credible sources for those radar weights with breakdown how the weight is divided between different components. Do both weights take into account antenna, receiver/exiter, power supply, analog signal converter and signal processing components? I bet Russian quote is for antenna only and AN/APG-81 weight is for the whole radar package.

Please, USA and Western countries in general have way more advanced and larger semiconductor industry compared to Russia. It's impossible for them to produce anywhere near similar components for AESA radars as USA for example can. Best known Russian T/R modules are inferior to those modules USA was producing 25 years ago. Where the hell are they going to find a way to produce similar modules and components to Western countries? These things don't emerge out of nowhere. There has to be ways to actually produce them in quantities. Russia bought some French thermal imagers for export tanks because their best products were at least a generation behind. They now have technology to produce 640x512 matrix themselves for tanks:
http://rostec.ru/en/news/2171

According to Krasnogorsky Zavod, the Agat-MDT commander’s combined target sight system with the Russian thermal imaging device will be able to detect and identify moving and non-moving enemy targets at a range of up to 4km, measure the distance to a target with its laser rangefinder and aim the shot from the tank’s cannon or gun.

That sounds great, but 4 km range against tanks is nothing. For example Thales Catherine thermal imaging sights can detect tanks well over 20 km away. 4 km range is not much better than what 1980s thermal sights like used in M60A3 or M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks managed to do. They'd have to leap about 2 whole generations of IIR technology to have even equal systems to Western ones.

[eloise]

Here we have proof that Irbis-E can track only one single target. Besides here the tracking range is only about 100 km away and only when it's head-on target. Clearly AN/APG-81 outranges Irbis-E by wide margin... :devil

Unless you spell it out what is the difference between detect/track and how to noitice it in the video iam sure he will claim tracking range of over 268 km from the video or that a target with RCS of 0.00000000000001 m2

[hythelday]

@garrya,@eloise, @hornetfinn, why do you give it to him? The stupid troll is better off ignored. Everytime you destroy his stupid BS, he just makes up some more. You bring knowledge to the poop-throwing fight.

I'd love to have repotred him, but unfortunately nothing he posts breaks enough rules to warrant a ban.

[wrightwing]

"Too bad then because both K77 and R37 are guided by radar "

R-77P / RVV-PE - Passive homing model.
R-77T / RVV-TE - Infrared homing model

", even that time two is already 1520 nm (2815 km) ways longer than your so called max range"

1520 nm =Ferry range

The ferry range for an F-35 is closer to 2x that distance.

[mixelflick]

Pretty clear US AESA's are far superior to their Russian counterparts.

What I found most telling was that one of the key learning points after the SU-35 deployed to Syria was that they'd be keeping the PESA radar. Now ask yourself: If their new AESA was such a quantum leap forward, why wouldn't you retro-fit it into the SU-35, your primo air superiority platform?

Of course you would. They're not, and I doubt it's for lack of rubles. More likely the new AESA doesn't offer significantly enhanced performance vs. their PESA...