Re: FGA-50 tech determines GaN for updated version of N036

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 07:45

Russians showed about 10, if not 20 different Zhuk "AESA" variants over the years. If those were in any way worth at least the ink of their brochures, the RuAF would have at least a few aircraft equipped with them. They do not.

The idea of Russian semiconductor industry being capable of producing any kind of GaN MMICsis laughable at best - that would imply they're not 25 years behind the curve in all things semiconductor manufacturing - which they are.
Russia stronk
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 08:11

juretrn wrote:Russians showed about 10, if not 20 different Zhuk "AESA" variants over the years. If those were in any way worth at least the ink of their brochures, the RuAF would have at least a few aircraft equipped with them. They do not. sounds like alot of progress for making that many variants and increasing effectiveness and performance of each one? They do have different variants but sell sh*t versions to other countries as usual.

The idea of Russian semiconductor industry being capable of producing any kind of GaN MMICsis laughable at best - that would imply they're not 25 years behind the curve in all things semiconductor manufacturing - which they are.
Well what Can I say I get tired of seeing poor results of US radars. Nor do I see anything that is intriguing in their development. Please compare and contrast......I feel like everyone in this forum is having too much difficulties doing RCS detection, wattage, size of radars, radar breakthroughs of other equipment, distance of detection, etc etc. A lot of boasting but as usual nothing to back it up.
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 08:30

Poor results of US radars... okay...
is that why SAR resolution of APG-81 is on the level that it's capable of not just finding moving targets, but also identifying them?
Meanwhile, Russians are talking about being excited because they're going to have 0.3 m SAR resolution :)

And tell me when anything Russian can scan the sky as quickly as this:


AESAs are expensive and take a long time to develop. If they were not worth it, the US wouldn't be flying airplanes equipped with them for over 15 years now.
Russia stronk
Online

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 10:11

wewuzkangz wrote:eeing poor results of US radars. Nor do I see anything that is intriguing in their development. Please compare and contrast......I feel like everyone in this forum is having too much difficulties doing RCS detection, wattage, size of radars, radar breakthroughs of other equipment, distance of detection, etc etc. A lot of boasting but as usual nothing to back it up.

IMHO most people can't be bothered discussing radar with you once they realized your maths skills is worse than a primary school kid
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 15:45

wewuzkangz wrote:
juretrn wrote:I guess I'll have to bite on this r****d troll again.

Russians showed about 10, if not 20 different Zhuk "AESA" variants over the years. If those were in any way worth at least the ink of their brochures, the RuAF would have at least a few aircraft equipped with them. They do not. sounds like alot of progress for making that many variants and increasing effectiveness and performance of each one? They do have different variants but sell sh*t versions to other countries as usual.

The idea of Russian semiconductor industry being capable of producing any kind of GaN MMICsis laughable at best - that would imply they're not 25 years behind the curve in all things semiconductor manufacturing - which they are.
Well what Can I say I get tired of seeing poor results of US radars. Nor do I see anything that is intriguing in their development. Please compare and contrast......I feel like everyone in this forum is having too much difficulties doing RCS detection, wattage, size of radars, radar breakthroughs of other equipment, distance of detection, etc etc. A lot of boasting but as usual nothing to back it up.


I will make it simple for you....Rossiya radar < American radar. Oh wait! I forgot that you will read that wrong :mrgreen:
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 18:09

juretrn wrote:Poor results of US radars... okay...
is that why SAR resolution of APG-81 is on the level that it's capable of not just finding moving targets, but also identifying them?
Meanwhile, Russians are talking about being excited because they're going to have 0.3 m SAR resolution :)

And tell me when anything Russian can scan the sky as quickly as this:


AESAs are expensive and take a long time to develop. If they were not worth it, the US wouldn't be flying airplanes equipped with them for over 15 years now.


moving targets and identification so its like every modern radar basically?

I would be excited to if that .3 m SAR resolution is from a far distance I wonder what distance the an/apg-81 is....Well I compare RCS detection of either 2 radars you will hate the results.

uhmmm nice it can scan the sky quickly

AESA for 15 years japs had it longer but yet are not as great as either Russia or the US. "AESAs are expensive and take a long time to develop." Yes I realized that. But there is nothing that astonishes me more is having a 100kg radar that can spot an RCS of 3 at 260km with 896 t/r modules which conclude the power levels each module must have.

I can compare that zhuk can track more targets than an/apg-81 but cannot engage as much as apg-81. There are specifications that are not known of newer AESA like the fga-50 that I can compare yet. I can find other things unless you find something more interesting in comparison.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7151
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 18:29

The video is from an early APG-81 test and shows the range as being 80nmi at the outer band (the furthest target was 90+ nmi). More recent videos show the range bands out to 120nmi. No info on target size. The key takeaway from that video is how fast the targets are detected, identified, and their vector determined. MSA radars have no hope of ever doing that.

The F-35 can maintain a "Situational Awareness" track on 100+ targets simultaneously and 8+ A2A "Weapons Quality" tracks as soon as you select the target on the screen.

Btw, the term "japs" is derogatory so please refrain from using it.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 239
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 18:33

wewuzkangz wrote:moving targets and identification so its like every modern radar basically?

sorry, meant ground targets.


1:40 on.
SAR map resolution on the fabled Zhuk AESA:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 773847.JPG

APG-76(hint: check the year of the document):
http://www.nordenretireesclub.org/scrap ... ssue_3.pdf
(thanks to arian)
Russia stronk
Online

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 02:29

wewuzkangz wrote:http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/09/01/13/73/phazot12.jpg guskov states back in 2011 they increased the range of RCS of 3 that was 130km to 250km basically stating that adding about 350 t/r modules

That was not what he said, not a single word about RCS there, could easily max range
Image

wewuzkangz wrote:I would be excited to if that .3 m SAR resolution is from a far distance I wonder what distance the an/apg-81 is....Well I compare RCS detection of either 2 radars you will hate the results.

Irbis-E can track a single target from 100 km
Online

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 02:51

arian wrote:So this idiot is now just spamming this forum with made-up misinformation.

I see why now. He purposefully made very long, spammy posts so that eventually we will get tired of it and can't be bothered to argue with him anymore. Then at that point he is free to sneak in as much propaganda as he wants. Very similar to JSR and Blackadam in Keypublishing. Long posts also allows him to sneak in more made up information without others wanting to double check.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
  • Warnings: 5

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 04:22

garrya wrote:
arian wrote:So this idiot is now just spamming this forum with made-up misinformation.

I see why now. He purposefully made very long, spammy posts so that eventually we will get tired of it and can't be bothered to argue with him anymore. Then at that point he is free to sneak in as much propaganda as he wants. Very similar to JSR and Blackadam in Keypublishing. Long posts also allows him to sneak in more made up information without others wanting to double check.


I understand the need to respond to him, but he's so obviously a dumb troll that I wouldn't worry about anyone buying his misinformation.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 10:19

"Irbis-E can track a single target from 100 km
"
I made the translation of this video.

0.10

Target №3 is detected 268km

0.20
-Will we track the target?( №3)

-No we will track on 100km range.
(At the beginning it is not clear, but it's not about target №3 )

0.25
Target №3 250km

0.35
Target №2 is 225km

0.49
Target №4 Comes to the fore.
Automatic change of priority target is expected.
1.09
Range 200 km(from №3 )
Turn off the flash

1.22
Range 100 km
Target №1 comes to the fore.
Target №1 is tracked.


As can be understood from the conversation
the ability Identify priority and threatening targets in automatic mode of the radar was tested.
Not the max range detection (flash= 45%)
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1415
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 10:48

terrygedran wrote:I made the translation of this video.0.10

Target №3 is detected 268km
0.20
-Will we track the target?( №3)
No we will track on 100km range.
(At the beginning it is not clear, but it's not about target №3 )
0.25
Target №3 250km
0.35
Target №2 is 225km
0.49
Target №4 Comes to the fore.
Automatic change of priority target is expected.
1.09
Range 200 km(from №3 )
Turn off the flash
1.22
Range 100 km
Target №1 comes to the fore.
Target №1 is tracked.
As can be understood from the conversation
the ability Identify priority and threatening targets in automatic mode of the radar was tested.
Not the max range detection (flash= 45%)


Funny that you come up with excuses so quick when Russia equipments are shown to be less than impressive,and you seem to learn Russian so quick? just the other day you were struggled with it? :drool: :mrgreen:
If you are so sure that max range wasn't used, explain what is "flash" then? :wink: duty cycle?, peak power? :mrgreen:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1415
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 16:54

terrygedran wrote:Hint : this test does not check for the maximum detection range.

This is your opinion, not fact. It may or may not check for maximum for detection range



terrygedran wrote:-Will we track the target?( №3)
-No we will track on 100km range.

May be because they can't track at that range.


terrygedran wrote:Automatic change of priority target is expected.
- automatic and manual transition to tracking airborne targets in the predetermined zone "

The same could be said about APG-81 test. Automatic targets tracking in predetermined zone.
Image
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1415
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 19:07

terrygedran wrote:Key world " Automatic change of priority target"

and how exactly would you know APG-81 doesn't change priority target?


terrygedran wrote: They are not testing "Automatic targets tracking in predetermined zone." as "APG-81 test" you claim.
And "APG-81 test" do not "tracking in predetermined zone" to.
"APG-81 test" is just tracking all targets in range.

80 nm is not the maximum range of APG-81, so yes it does track targets in predetermined zone
Next

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests