S-400 and F-35

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3219
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Jan 2021, 17:40

wrightwing wrote:It's proven hard enough to intercept generally non-stealthy weapons, much less VLO weapons hiding in EA/EW en route. The Pk versus these weapons is going to be very low, and require a large number of interceptors (i.e. more than can be fired without reloading.)


Exactly!

But Mr. hocum during all his [Putin commando] rhetoric seems to constantly ignore that simple FACT!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Jan 2021, 18:26

hocum wrote:What were on the tables there, in front of army general Rudskoy? A lot of debris, full of shrapnel's holes. :? Unexploded warhead was on the photo on the screen. What kind video evidence you need? Where can you see shoot from complex's position and destroyed target, and both are recognizable? It is impossible even for extreme closer ranges as 2-3km at daytime. Strike was at 4 a.m. local time, as usually at night. There are tons videos with night AAA shooting and missiles launching from Mddle East, possibly from Sirya, but without any time and place confirmations usually. Just bookmarks in videos' name/description, often is Arabian language or/and Arabian language speaking, by the way. For me is totally impossible to find such proves, I can just offer it for you, if you know Arabian, of course.
How can you prove that your photo from that place, and that time, and for that kind of missiles? We had seen the same already: georgian Grads shooted on Zhinval, but "video evidences" tried to tell us that it was russian artillery shooted on Georgia.
Almost all missiles was shooted down outside urban areas (in video was a special map), used all kind of syrian air defence complexes (not short range only), even S-200 (but S-200 without sucsess, that isn't wonder). So stops your manipulation again - all Syria didn't sleep at 4.00 morning and waited with cameras for video record to convince you personaly. :) When peoples awaked, when grab some cameras - in this lockal place all could end, even if it was visible/listenable. Even if something was recorded, and was published too, we can't find and prove it.
Old optical tracking channels looks like a tank's scope - without any screens, just oculars for operator and nothing more. Let's record video from this.
Does Minisrty of Defence need to prove something to persons like you, especially by your rules?

Well, it is very simple: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences.
US and NATO claimed they attacked X - number of targets, the evidences is that all X targets were destroyed. There is no way to argue against that.
Russian claimed Syria air defense shot down 71 out of 101 missiles but they evidences that they present were literally 5-6 pieces of fragments , that it. Which can literally be taken from the site as well. People might sleep at night, but with at least 71 explosion on the sky and the sound of missiles launched from ground, and you telling me no one can record anything whatsoever?. Even though pretty much all others time when even an aircraft is shot down, there would be plenty of video recording. Sure, if the air defense shotdown only 4-5 targets then you can argue that they all in location where no one can record, but with over 71 targets then you are really pushing it over the believable border




hocum wrote:Man, this counts differently. For collapsing 3 civilian 3-stages non-large concrete buildings you need 3 150-200kg high-explosive warheads at all. For guarantee 6-7 missiles need. Rudskoy as told about 6-7 craters, as I remember...
76 cruise missiles can do the same on the photo even without any warheads. Just honeycomb all 3 buildings to collapse. In fact they destroyed empty buildings, without any chemical weapons, and even without any precursors for chemical weapon or just toxic chemistry. Because object places right among civilian quarters and we didn't see mobs of poisoned civilians, and injured/killed security guards on such kind of object - it is obvious.
So, it was awesome. Great sucsess. For how many hundred millions of $ - who knows. US with allies may pay 1% of this money for syrians silently, and siryans would disassemble all that buildings by theyself immediatly. ;)
US version of strike was total insolvent in fact - because unexploded warhead's photo and claimed missiles' outfit by one target. And it is even we will try to suppose that syrians/russians gathered debris from missiles and drilled holes in these by hands. ;)

Sure, you can collapse building with smaller number of missiles, but to pretty much destroy them beyond recognition then you need higher number of missiles. Secondly, it not like you can recognize the concrete fragments after 5 missiles vs 10 missiles explosion either.
Barzah Research & Development Center
B3-AB342_backgr_12U_20180415160512.png

Him Shinshar weapons storage and bunker
homs-before-after-600.jpg
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Jan 2021, 19:28

hocum wrote:Well, if you would know my language, it would be some about true. But this... I will give some material, but in cyrillic, so would it be prove?

Yes you can give material in your language, as long as it goes with a MSword file so that I can put in translator, then no problem.

hocum wrote:Of course aren't equal. S-300: 1023 bits of spread spectrum band and 15 bits of base-polinomial structure. AN/APG-77 (on the cry): 127 bits of spread spectrum band and 7 bits of base-polinomial structure.

Very cute that you can throw some buzz words around, but unless you can prove them with sources then these words aren't worth anything


hocum wrote:
I just remind that Yugoslavia couldn't recieve even original documentaion on AK rifles, and all their Zastavas is the result of reverse ingeneering. In case of such technic - imagine by yourself

And yet he were the one who used the system not you, so Iam sure he knew about his system. Besides, allowed to use something and allowed to have technology transfer of that system are very different thing

hocum wrote:
And you modestly didn't show with tons of image what was air defence technics in Sirya that time. But I am writing: outdated old and stationary S-75 and S-125, some Kvadrats (in 1973 debuted very well, but after 10 years hadn't the best), and some Shilkas, Strela-1s and Osa-As/OsaAKs (even weren't AKM modification) for a change. There weren't any core complexes, there weren't S-200 (arrived only in 1984), there weren't Krugs (2K11), there weren't more modern Buks instead of Kvadrats, there weren't newest S-300PT... :? There weren't newest Tunguskas and Thors. All as I told - most modern F-15/F-16 under Boeing-707 Arava ECM coverage against S-75, S-125 and Kvadrat can't destroy syrian air defence fully.

The Syria air defense at that time included SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 and Su-20, Mig-21, Mig-23
Israel force at that time include Scout UAV, F-4, F-15, F-16, Boeing 707. Israel F-15 and F-16 at that time weren't modern, and F-16 didn't even have ability to use AIM-7. Neither of them have ability to use AGM-88 at that time and Israel F-16A don't have HTS so they can't track SAM location either. These SAM were attacked by F-4 using ancient AGM-78 and AGM-45 while F-15 and F-16A used purely against enemy fighter



hocum wrote:
There wasn't system air defence of ship order - wasn't any air defence stuff for fleet. Seawolf was nothing more that one big mistake instead of mid-range air defence complex. Battle survival of english ships was zero - even unexploded Exocet burned and destroyed english destroyer. And last, but not least - ships onboard ECM inflied on english satellite links, and they turned it off when used link with London. Guess when wwere they speaking with London? Unorganized... no, totally unoraganized and undisciplined.

by today standard, sea dart isn't very lethal system, but at the time, it was dangerous, with ramjet missile to sustain speed and also out range most fighter launch weapons



hocum wrote:
Are you kidding me? Do you see what were in armenian air defence? There was a victory parade in Baku.
Again: Osa-AKMs, Strela-10Ms, Shilkas, Kubs, some Buk-M1 and S-300PT (36D6 was only there). Even in USSR in 1991 it wasn't the best. ONE BATTERY of modern Thors, acted separetly. Nothing more. Again modern Byraktars and some jewish Hermeses/Harops was against... total trash 40-60 years old. But Azerbaijan had more than 90 MLRS systems, so those pathetic some UСAVs inflied on nothing, and.

the tiring excuse again, every time a Russian equipment get destroyed, it either the system is the "export" model or "too old". Yet before the system were destroyed, we always hear about how it will lock up the air space or how even the most modern Western weapon is nothing against it.
and as modern as these drone are, they have less speed, less agility, less sensor range, much shorter weapon range than an aircraft and they don't have their own jammer either. Their main advantage over normal fighter is endurance and cost, but they should be much easier to shot down
turkey UAV.jpg


hocum wrote:
we can't recognize what kind of weapon hits that Thor-M2KM or 36D6

I haven't checked Thor M2K but we have very good idea what hit the 36D6 radar and S-300 launcher
36D6 radar was tracked by a drone camera for very long time from close range, we see the view get closer and closer before the video cut. When the view get closer, you can see various people running across the view. From another video, presumably a camera at the site, you can the same people running just before the radar is destroyed.

36D6 A.PNG



36D6 radar.PNG

36D6 2.PNG


S-300 launcher:
S-300.png

S-3001.png
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Jan 2021, 20:50

hocum wrote:Nebo has, Protivnk-G has, Gamma-D has, Kasta... possible. May be something more. It is all military air defence ground radars, which will be additional forces for S-300/400 in potential conflict.
Theory, technology had desighed already, question is just in antenna's module. When it will produced - immediatly all ground/naval fire batteries recieve this technology. But aviation still will not: beacuse cooling, power supply and weight. I consider that my thesis about ground/naval systems' technological superiority had proved at all. Next your attempts to manipulate in this direction I will ignore.

We already mentioned Protivnik-GE as DBF phased array at the start.
Kasta isn't a DBP phased array
Nebo SVU has digital beam forming but only in vertical plane for anti ballistic missile function
Gamma-DE isn't a DBP phased array.
Theory to practical is a long way, digital beam forming pretty much mostly for long wavelength as I mentioned earlier, shorter wavelength has the limitation of element spacing. So 9S19, 64N6E , 91N6 on S-300 and S-400 are all not DBF array.
Not to mention the huge cost barrier, just like GaN modules, technology is here, but using it is a huge different matter




hocum wrote:And more well suited for enemy jams too. This is the result of extereme sensitive reciever without extreme powerful transmitter against serious enemy. If it isn't extreme sensitive - it would give nothing above PESA as I told.
And a potential more power is just potential, espesially on the fighter plane, because it tends to extreme problems with cooling for so small and density antenna array. And some stabuility problems, requires shedule prescise calibrations. Well, this tends us to offtopic.

The sensitivity of AESA over PESA came from the fact that its internal noise is lower, it doesn't mean AESA can't transmit high power.
Fighter AESA aren't more dense than ground based AESA, and PESA radar have more reliability problem than AESA since its transmitting power come from the single source of TWT, so if there is any issue with that TWT then your radar is useless. Whereas AESA radar can lost about 10% of T/R modules and can still operate pretty much just as good.

hocum wrote:No, man, it is you don't know how the "air strike" on formidable air defence looks like in reality. ;) In this case some overdemocracy states and fighters for "human rigths" just simply refuse from attacks. Strategic result as is.
Venezuela - two Antey-2500 divisions and some export wheeled Buks and Thors for spicing. From 2019 till today there isn't any democratic bombardment and non-flyable areas, bunches of cruise missiles and loitering garbage. Just inspirated financial crysis, attempts to infiltrate agents through the border and screaming in UN. No any more.
Iran? The same, from S-300PMU1 divisions was been deployed there.
Nothern Korea? KN-06 is ready and was deployed, but it is less earnestly because they have nuke too.
Launching "bunch of long range ..." requires a bunch of launching platforms, its deployment and concentration in such numbers almost impossible to hide, and it is always possible to recieve pre-emptive strike to all this bunch. It isn't chess, when white starts first always.

Firstly, there is no need to attack Venezuela when they are literally killing themselves by communism over there. They never made any attempt to have non fly zone there anyway
Secondly, North Korea doesn't get attacked because they have nuke, that what actually matter. KN-6 doesn't mean sh*t.
By contrast, Israel have no issue strike Iran site in Syria as if it is their own air space even though there are a bunch of S-300 in Syrian
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Jan 2021, 21:44

hocum wrote:Armenia hasn't anymore that old garbage.
Pantsir on goverment tests, 2007 (in stardart ECM surrounding, by the way), target - E95 (subsonic cruise missile/drone's imitator). One cannons' burst and target shooted down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=255&v=u ... e=youtu.be
Tunguska against E95 again (suppose black sky, because TV Zvezda channel's exclusive show) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=255&v=u ... e=youtu.be
One burst and hit.
Pantsir tracks small quadrocopter, firstly demonstrate fire and then shoots it down by cannons, some small range because without video editing, by one videosequence (especial for persons who likes video evidences):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=754&v=D ... e=youtu.be
Thor tracks the same quadrocopter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=860&v=O ... e=youtu.be
Well, let's tell us more about how hard is to find and to shoot down slowly UAVs, loitering garbage, and evven mighty cruise missiles. ;)
And I still don't tell something about ECM measures against UAVs and loitering staff, because it is some difficult for me. It isn't my speciality, I will force to use just common words, as all we know who.

Firstly, the top speed of E-95 is only 200-300 km/h so it is actually significantly slower than cruise missile which often move at Mach 0.8-0.9, it also doesn't have any stealth quality. In addition it also didn't make any maneuver in these video .
e95 drone.PNG

Secondly, sure you can shot down loitering UAV, but at what distance?, and how far will your air defense detect it without knowledge before hand.


hocum wrote:Pantsirs' battery on exersises (in ECM surrounding too), target - couple of "Saman" training targets, which is refubricated Osa-AKM's missiles (anti-radar missile's imitator). Supersonic, highly maneuvrable, with very low RCS. Two launches, showed one hit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1249&v= ... e=youtu.be

I don't see mention of surrounding ECM, furthermore, while Saman is certainly supersonic, it won't be as fast as the original Osa (mach 3) because they replace the sharp cone nose with a blunt nose, presumably to put a reflector inside
1024px-Osa-AKM_9M33M3.jpg

Saman-M_target_drone,_MAKS_2009.jpg

In addition, in that video, Osa literally just fly in straight line , there is nothing highly maneuver in that video.

hocum wrote:Kindergarden again. 2 choises... Enemy has infinite number of choises always, and it never acts as you want to be.
Just few advanced forward radar-imitate decoys with simplest AAA batteries will mutiply by zero all your "cheap" loitering garbage easily. Even modernized Shilkas/ZSU-23-2s is acceptable. Even Kornet-D is acceptable for such targets. And you even know nothing without additional recon by serious UAVs/planes/satellites.
What if air defence side simply calls battle helicopters like interceptors against your loitering garbage, and makes some massager

The first wave of cruise missile doesn't attack target of opportunities like small cheap Shilkas/ZSU-23-2 decoys, they attack high value target such as air base, OTH radars, command centers, Radio tower, Power plants. You are mistaken if you think the targets of them are mobiles air defense.
Helicopter doesn't have the speed to intercept cruise missiles, they are faster than loitering drone but not by much and most helicopter doesn't have radar so it need highly coordinated guidance from ground to intercept these loitering munition. Secondly, helicopter are only hard to detect when they are low and slow, so sending them to get loitering target will make them juicy targets because they must fly fast and high


hocum wrote:2 choices... Let's clean your mind from stupidly jewish advertizing, maked for children with Down synrdome.
How can you sinchronize loitering garbage with speeds about 100-200 km/h and cruise missiles with 900-1000 km/h? Would cruise missiles circle around a lot of time untill loitering garbage would crawl to pretended defence area? For which line/time it would need for? In practize air defence will chew both waves separetly.

Who said the loitering drone have to fly in the same formation as the cruise missile + jamming decoys wave?. They don't.
Things like Dash-x and Atilus-900nwill cruise behind and use their ESM system to locate the location of any ground radar that is emitting so that manned fighters can even attack from below radar horizon. These loitering drones also have EO seeker to help them locate target of opportunities and report back


hocum wrote:And this is just planning, you know just position of surveylance radar and may be forward advanced [s]decoys[/s]sources. You can plan nothing without reckon, that is the main problem. But all loitering mution designed to avoid reckon at all and time/link for striking. As a result it has a lack cabuilities both reckon and damage. Huge barrage time requires economy at fuel/battery as much as possible, as a result for air defence such munitions become sitting ducks. For operational scale it requires to spend hours of time to reach operational area and catch pre-eptive strike after its launched, but before it can reach targets' area.

You don't need to know the position of mobiles radars before hand. You only need to know position of air base, command center, OTH radars, power plants. These things can't move, so you know where they are with satellite images. Then once you know the location of these targets, you can attack them with long range cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles like ARRW, HAWC. The air defense can either let these very high value targets be destroyed, or they will show their position

hocum wrote:Little sizes UAV almost hasn't sustainability against enemy ECM forces: overhelms or GPS for self-giuded, or backlink to operator for remote guided variants. Or both, if it is so unlucky.[

Anti jam GPS have existed for quite a while, also, if you transmit trying to take over the control of the loitering drone, then you also let the enemy know the location of your jamming station.


hocum wrote:It is left to prove that any of this missiles design to break through formidable air defence, or russian military hopes for this. Every this missile is easy target for organized air defence too. Iskander-K is a cheap variant of true, quasy-ballistic Iskander, Kalibr/Ha-35 is the same for Onix/Granit/Bazalt. Burevestnik/Ha-102 is for finishing off after full-scale nuke and nuclear deterrence. But for hard air defence russian military plans to use Ha-22/32 missiles, or Ha-15 airballistic missile, or new Kinjal airborn quasy-ballistic missile, or new Zirkon anti-ship missile - agianst Aegis and Aegis-ashore systems.

Iskander-K is not the cheap version of Iskander, it is a different missiles that served a different purpose, namely attacking from much greater distance
Burevestnik isn't for finishing off after a full scale nuke, ballistic missiles will do that much faster and simpler. If subsonic missiles are as easy to stopped as you like to think then Burevestnik will never be made, since it is basically just a very expensive long range subsonic missile.


hocum wrote:http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-618.html
Wavelength range - meter (13 operating points, VHF / HF)

Tell us more about original Nebo.

Do you know how long is HF wave? It is between 10-100 meters.
Element spacing is often around 1/2 wavelength, that mean even at highest HF frequency, the spacing is 5 meters, at max HF frequency the spacing is 50 meters
Look at this photo, the spacing between individual T/R modules isn't even as long as the guy. So once again, Nebo doesn't use HF frequency, not in a million year.
Sky-U.jpg


hocum wrote:Aaa, en wiki... Well, it have accepted.

If you don't believe Wiki, you can search the same phase and plenty source will show up. TALD is quite well known in Desert storm
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 Jan 2021, 10:41

hocum wrote:Well, In your personal radiophisics again. So, jammer recieved radar's signal and got it back. But radar signal is short - what will jammer do when back-signal ends? Countinue transmitting? It will be simple countinius jam, so radar's auto-compensator starts working and neglates back-signal after minor time. So, instead of infinite cone behind jammer we recieve very limited cone. Also, radar knows how long is its own signal and can control this by in-signal DSS coding.
So, jammer must delay repeating back-signal. By which time? By twice duration of original signal plus some delay, or it would be continious jam again. As a result, we will recieve instead of continous cone behind jammer the chain of cones with "empty" places. So, defended plane must be into one of this cones, or radar can observe plain.
In every case, plane must stay at cone behind the jammer, into angles that less then radar's resolving capacity by azimuth and local angle. It require to precision plane's placing, which require to know PRECISION COORDINATES OF MALD OWN. How it can be? By plane's radar working? Hello, enemy ECM-forces, bye-bye stealth. By NAVSTAR on MALD? Foreget about that, it was left behind. Every run off from strictly cone will fail jamming defence.


A radar know distance to target by sending a pulse, then measure the time it take for that pulse to be send back. For example, for a target at 400 km the signal need about 0.0026 seconds to return. For a target at 20 km, the signal will take 0.00013 seconds to return. The radar don't know how far target is located from it, then how can it neglect the signal after a specific amount of time? . If you already know how far the target is from you, then what the point of using a radar in the first place?. Because the radar can't know the distance to target without measuring the time delay, the jammer can literally make an infinite chain of return behind it, how can the radar know where the target located inside that chain?. Even with the look through mode in operation, and the plane isn't inside one of the cone, how can the radar distinguish between the individual cone and the return from actual plane?. You think the signal from the cone is stronger than the plane return? might be , but not necessary, because the jammer can also control the level of that signal.
Secondly, plane does not need to stay inside the cone behind the jammer, if what you said was the case, then standoff jamming would never work, since it is literally mean the jamming support aircraft are far behind the aircraft they supposed to protect. Sending delayed signal is not the only form of jamming, a very common way is to drown the return signal under the jamming noise floor.
stand off jamming.jpg


Thirdly, it isn't hard for both the jammer and the aircraft to stay inside the azimuth angle of the radar, even with 1 degree beamwwidth, at 200 km, the cell size is 3.5*3.5 km , at 400 km, the cell size is 7*7 km. MALD-N and SPEAR-EW both have datalink to communicate with each others and with the aircraft that launched them. And we are not talking about 1 jammer per 1 aircraft, even a single F-35 can spam 24 SPEAR-EW, which is a huge quantity of angular coverage that they can cover.


hocum wrote:Which power jammer may have? About dozens watts? Grownd radar is more powerful by at least 4 orders.
So little jammer can't have directional antenna, so its anttenna's gain is no more than 2 (in practize about 1 - undirectional antenna). All S-300's radars has precision directional antennas, whith gain more than hundred (sidelobs is lower than main beam 100 times and more), and antenna's gain has second degree in formula. Another more 4 order in power advantage by radar.

Firstly, radar signal travel two way while jamming signal travel one way, so the inverse square law applied twice on the radar signal while it only applied once on the jamming signal. Add to the fact that the jamming decoys are not on the aircraft but much closer to the threat, the jamming signal reduce at much slower rate. For example: let say the aircraft is 200 km from the threat radar while these jamming decoys are 100 km from the threat radar. That mean radar return will degrade proportional to 200^4 = 1.600.000.000 while jamming signal will degrade proportional to 100^2 = 10.000. That mean radar return power reduce 160.000 times more than the jamming power.
Secondly, not all radar power that transmitted away will reflected back when they hit the aircraft, especially in case of stealth aircraft. RAM can absorb 15-20 dB (100 times reduction in power) in effective band width. Place like S-duct where radar waves bounce multiple times then the accumulate absorption rating can reach 50-60 dB (100.000 -1000.000 reduction in power). The airplane itself is also not a perfect antenna, as in they are not design to focus the signal back to the source, especially in case of stealth aircraft, most of radar wave that hit the aircraft will be directed away instead of back to the source. You can also think of the aircraft after radar wave strike it as a transmitter, this transmitter is directional but not to the direction of the threat radar.
hocum wrote:DSS can discover signal below noise if it is no less then Lg(N), when N - binary sequence length. For N=1023 it means that radar can discover signal 1000 times lower than noise - again addtitional 3 order advantage. By the way, imitate long random bit-sequence by limited computing power by onboard stuff on 136kg midget is very dangerous - if one bit stay uncovered, jam will brake (in theory, because also reciever's own noise is in practize). For avoid this, "covered" jam uses in practize - back-signal has little more bits (and little more duration than original signal), but this little distorts back-signal anymore, and with every repeating places between cones grows too.
Summ result is ELEVEN ORDERS of power (110db), so if jammer is far - radar can breakthrow the jam just by power/brutforce (depends of defended plane's RSC, of course). For avoid this, jammer must be much closer to the radar than plane. For plane's RSC about 0.01sq.m. and jammer's power 100W result ratio will be 10:1 - jammer must be at least 10 times closer to radar than plane, or jam will brake.

The processing gain from pulse coding only apply when the jammer literally only do basic noise jamming without any attempt to imitate the radar signal, in that situation the processing gain is equal to the pulse compression ratio. But as soon as the jammer replicate the radar signal, then your calculation doesn’t apply anymore. In other words, either the jammer don’t have to replicate the radar pulse, it doesn’t need the look through period and radar processing gain will apply or the jammer replicate the pulse and processing gain apply. But the two cases doesn’t happen at the same time. With DRFM, the jammer can replicate radar pulse perfectly ,you don’t actually need huge computing power to record the pulse and re transmit back. And no, jamming won’t break if a single bit is uncovered, the processing gain is just proportional to the number of bit, more uncovered bits simply mean more processing gain for the radar and vice versa.
DRFM 1.PNG

DRFM 2.PNG


hocum wrote: When another radar with another band will turn on (tracking radar for example), jam by one MALD will breake immediatly, and plane must to act another jammer for another radar (and stay at both cones already, or both MALDs must stay in one course to facilitate this all). If another complex (placed another) will turn on - the same again, third jammer and now 3 cones cross-section. Deploy against every radar one MALD is possible, but stays in result cross-section - :) Somebody will discover plane anyway out of cone of defence.

1 F-35 can carry 24 SPEAR-EW or 10 MALD-N and these decoys are much cheaper than deploying an additional ground based radar.
hocum wrote:Resume: for counter-jamming one powerful jammer is 100 times dangerous than 10 weak jammers.

Not really, powerful jammer are bigger and also more vulnerable, cheaper and smaller jammer can be put near the threat for the same effect.

hocum wrote:And don't forget that air-defence side will use counter-jams too, and much more successfully that airborn side (by power, antennas and computing and without circus juggling in flight). For example, 1RL257 Krasuha-4.

When either ground based jammer or airborne jammer operating, they can both be attacked by anti radar missile or any weapon with HoJ function. For cheap expandable decoys like Spear-EW, MALD-N, this isn’t a big problem because expanding enemy’s missile is their function, just by making enemy spending SAM to shot them down, they already get the job done. How about for things like EA-18G?
They always have the often to dive down below the radar horizon . Whereas, for something like Krasuha-4 if something like AARGM-ER or ROCKs hitting you, you basically pay with your life, because even if you turn off your jammer, you can’t move very far from original position.

hocum wrote: Just like that, just like that. Before this would be only pulses from survelance radar and some random pulses from tracking radars, some warnings. Before some seconds from hit illuminating from launcher/missile begins, and that will be total alarlm already, but it is almost too late to do something. Main problem is so many random pulses come to plane in battlefield: reflections, beams switching, pulses from outstanding complexes, if it surveylance radar - it emits all in the area by very wide beam. You can't react on every this kind of situation. So you don't know exactly - do enemy see you? Have it been launched missile already or haven't been? You can react immediatly just for short range missiles' launches

If your radar return is powerful enough to detect a stealth aircraft, then it is powerful enough for the stealth aircraft to detect your radar. With multiple aircraft or 1 aircraft and multiple dash-x after seconds, the ground based radar will be located. Doesn’t matter if the radar is fire control or search radar, no pilot would be stupid enough to get within 5 km from the threat.

hocum wrote:Fortunatly, in real battle for UHF-band RCS of stealth planes will be much higher that RSC of so little lens, as I calculated previous. So even nothing similar will be - 0.0*sq.m for lenses, 0.*sq.m for stealth planes. .

That is for 1 aircraft and 1 decoy in separate resolution cell, who say several decoys can’t be in the same cell?
hocum wrote:Firstly, let's prove that SPEAR is in regular troops.
Secondly, 1 S-300V** division has up to 192 missiles ready to launch. Tell us more how 24 SPEARs can drain it all (and where will be all countless MALDs).
I will mean that it isn't in mass produce. Why you would be better than me?

Firstly, it will be mass produced
Capture.PNG

Secondly, do you seriously think a whole division of S-300 is attacked by a single F-35?
hocum wrote:And what is the "very difference"? More higher price, as usual, but what will be better compare to JSOW?

Much faster, much longer range, much better agility with 1:1 T/W and terminal maneuver ability, additional RF sensor, sea skimming ability, 2 way datalink.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 Jan 2021, 20:19

hocum wrote:Just like that. Again and last time: subsonic weapons require tons of time to reach targets' area, it gives for enemy much possibuilites to shoot it down and to avoid backstrike. And it is no more than easy targets, as I had shown earlier.

Even the slow subsonic cruise missile still move at least 27 times faster than a mobile TEL can travel. And all you showed were the shot down of individual slow moving targets and 1 supersonic target, but they weren't stealth, they weren't coming from multiple direction, they didn't make any maneuver, there wasn't any jamming


hocum wrote:Looks on April 2018 in Syria again.

Yes, an all I see are the total destruction of all infrastructures that were attacked


hocum wrote: And you don't know that after firsts ECM countermeasures in Vietnam for every air defence complex designs "standart ECM surround", and nobody tests air defence complexes in "black sky" from that times. All ranges for radars and missiles recieved from tests, instead of theory calculation, like for SA-75: pulse frequency is 1Khz, so range will be 30km and that's all. And this "standart ECM surround" just makes more harder and harder in time, and it is overhelms all that enemy can make in real battlefield.

There is quite a bit of different from standard ECM used in exercrise and what the enemy will use in the battlefield
For example: do these jammer has DRFM?, How far are they from the radar?, what are the RCS of target being protected...etc

hocum wrote:Look on the fatal accident above Black Sea in 2001. Civilian Tu-154 was shooted down by ukraininan S-200 and debris was founded at the point 42.11N, 37.37E. It is 340-360km distance from training site on Opuk peninsula in Crimea. But wait, wait! Is S-200 Vega-M has only 240km official range, isn't it? But it was happen, in reality.

Are you seriously comparing the shotdown of a civilian aircraft without any ECM capability , RCS of a barn, no maneuver ability with military aircraft?
Secondly, air plane aren't vaporized immediately once they are hit, if they are only damaged , they can still glide for a while before hitting the surface, nevermind that the airplane hit the sea surface so fragments can be carried by the waves as well
The plane was about 270 km from the site when it was hit though.
S-200 distance to Tu-154.PNG


hocum wrote:So it is impudent american and jewish adverize needs to decrease for real battle surround (your MALD's picture is exellent example), in russian offical caracteristics is all had taken into accaunt already. Even more.
And for you and another "strategoses" like you it is a good option to think again about your stupidly and suicidal plans to dance right in front of official missile range. So, if you add few km more - can you affraid nothing? ;)

Yeah sure, only Russian know how to design their weapons for battle, everyone else haven't got a clue what they are doing

hocum wrote:Total unserious. Man, you are making boring for me. Again sures, claims and spellcasts and nothing more.
Total stock of long range cruise missiles for all US military forces estimates at 6000 - 7000. For 5-7% efficiency - how many targets they would hit? About 500, and would left without pants for years, until this stock will restore at least partialy.

So where did you got that magical 5-7% efficiency data from? your behind?. By that logic, similarly, I can also claim Russian SAM only have 3% effeciency :mrgreen:

hocum wrote:We had told about force concentration already. It tends to tell by circle, round by round, it becomes not funny. You claimed that you answer to me for avoiding nonsense, but its looks like you try to overflood the topic

Doesn't really matter that you answer about force concentration before if your answer is completely nonsense on the format of US airforce just being retarded, doesn't use any decoys and jamming tool they have any just fly directly to the 5 km radius around the SAM site.


hocum wrote:Forget about your ARRGM-ER, it isn't ready. Simple ARRGM, dearest of all my friends.
Are you golden fish, with similar memory? Previous I had told bout aerosols, chaff, Gazetchiks - do you forget all? Or you need a picture? Here you go: Image
For NAVSTAR exist another boxes, which can placed by hudnreds kilometers away. Something like Shipovnik-AERO can substitute NAVSTAR's signals even. All it is parts of position area passive defence.

And neither aerosols or chaff have any effect on INS, GPS so once the aircraft get your location on their ESM, if your radar and launcher doesn't move away they can still be hit, if they move then they are easier to track by GMTI and aircraft can update target location for missile through 2 way datalink. The ability of Gazetchiks to block the line of sight against multiple threats from multiple direction is also questionable
There are anti-Jam function to deal with GPS jammer as well.



hocum wrote:It can't reach even outer circle of active defence around core complex. Decoys can't imagine planes, just lauched munitions. Chaff in front of planes is very dangerous, causes to crash, and somewhere on the side it hides nothing. For 300 000$ per one MALD air defence side can fullfil al position area by all kind of decoys, even for every short-range complex will be at least some false positions.

Decoys can imitate planes, that what they are designed for, and unless you use MMW at very short range, then in most case your radar doesn't have the resolution to distinguish between decoys and plane. The most common way to distinguish them would be to base on jet engine modulation. Unfortunately, neither the decoys or stealth aircraft have exposed jet engine blade. The fact that decoys now can jam just make it an order of magnitude harder for air defense to distinguish them


hocum wrote:A-10 surveys(wide FoV) at 7400m range, garbage like Bird Eye 400 at 700m range by its own. Traking (narrow FoV) possible at 12300m for assault plane, and at 4900m range for UAV. I had showed already how "inaccurate" is 2A38 cannons, requires a direct hits. Imagine by yourself how "inaccurate" will be S-60 cannon with shrapnel/prefragmented rounds and modern aiming system against subsonic cruise missiles, and especially loitering garbage. ;) 148 rounds will turn to dozens of shooted down targets such this, with huge fire capacity, because it don't need to hold every target untill hit. It is also capable even against enemy infantry and armored vehicles, wich Thor is suppose to be very suffer in first line of land troops.

I said it before, tracking purely by electric optical system without a radar is extremely slow. To be able to identify small munition and UAV, you need very narrow FoV (very high zoom) on the order of 0.5*0.5 degrees. Let say your 2S38 Derivatsiya has to track a sector of 180 degrees in azimuth, and 90 degree in elevation. We can say he have to look through 64800 little square of that sector to fully scan the sector for target. Even if the operator only need 0.5 seconds to look in each square, he will need 9 hours to fully scan the sector. Wider FoV can be used but then in that case the detection range is much lower and you are much more likely to miss target



hocum wrote:Yep, yep, isn't. If it makes you more dreaming - of course. Mighty and advanced HARM block A could hold last position of target, but complete air defence complex can't guide missiles to the end of track... Or retargeting. Even S-125 can launch missile manually, before the target comes in range, but modern complexes can't - impossible, anonimus "eloise" from f-16.net have forbidden. :?

Have some common sense. Do you want to know why HARM A remember the last position of target would work but the same tactic can't be used with a SAM?. Because ground radar rarely move at all, especially when HARM A was being developed, by contrast, aircraft can move in 3D plane at very high velocity. In merely 3 minutes, an aircraft at Mach 0.9 could have move 54 km to any direction from the original point. Have fun hitting anything by going to its last position.


hocum wrote:For antenna's altitude 5m at the range about 220-250km "under radiohrizon" will be lower than 3km. It is easy reachable by MANPADS and AAA. In practize nobody would do that, if this dandger exist on battlefield - all planes always lift up at least 5-6km altitude. But for this altitude line of sight will be about ~300km range.
Buk Image
S-350 Image
Both S-300 Image
Don't forget about some special mines for valleys and so on.
Main feature is to shout out as loud as air defence crew members can hear you: "I'm in sanctuary, under radiohorizon!", and you will be totally safe, and all will be well. :)

Firstly, these tower for S-300 can't move or fold up quickly so by putting radar on these, you make it much easier to find them
Secondly, for a radar at height of 38 meters (assuming you put it on one of these 40V6MD tower), it can detect anything at height of 1 km further than 156 km. So the easiest way to deal with long range SARH is actually to just dive below the horizon, it is actually a common tactic.


hocum wrote:9M82MD/9M83MD. What mistake you mean for? It is you make at least some mistakes in every post here.
My S-300PT/PS and S-300V has almost nothing similar, but where did I mistake?
Can I prove? Well, there is virtual training simulator for 5E26, "center computer core" of S-300P** - [url]//dfmsu.narod.ru/study/cvk.rar[/url]
File -> open -> I.map and you can imagine that you are S-300 guy on control pad "I". Or at least to try, because all cyrillic... ;?

The file can't even run so not sure what you are trying to prove with it?. Just go inside the S-300 command post and take photo of a piece off paper with your name, you can erase the sensitive part.


hocum wrote:Yep, even more lighter missile has this. Even similar therritoral missile has this. Even more lighter and therritorial missile has this. But much more expensive core complex for land troops air defence hasn't allegedly. :) Into another reality. If you would right, at least last modernization to V4 was almost useless: what benefit from longer missile range if you can aim target at such distances only in stratosphere...
And don't "active" - dual-mode seekers, which can operate both semi-active and active modes.
It's your turn to prove your words by something more believable. For now you just claim that it has only semi-active seekers by your own words and nothing more. I suppose by analogy and base on air defence's developing strategy, which declares replacement semi-active seekers by dual-mode ones and similary missiles' data. But you do the same - if original complex in 1983 had this, ostensibly lazy russians of course can't change it even now. Why my words must be worse that yours?

Just because lighter missile have a certain kind of seeker doesn't mean a bigger one will also have them. It is completely unrelated . For example: AIM-9 has infrared seeker, does that mean AIM-7 has infrared seeker?. Or AIM-120 has active radar seeker, does that mean SM-2 and SM-3 also have active radar seeker?. Spear has a multimode MMW, SAL seeker does that mean storm shadow have the same> . Theoretical missiles are even more unrelated, for example: Locaas has Lidar seeker, does that mean Jassm also have Lidar seeker?
There is no version of 9M82 and 9M83 with active radar seeker whether old or new, that is a fact and widely reported. If you want to prove that they have active radar seeker, then show some official source. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences and you need to prove a positive statement , I don't have to prove a negative one.
If you think that isn't fair, refer to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Offline

tequilashooter

Banned

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2020, 18:11

Unread post14 Jan 2021, 00:03

I have absolutely looked everywhere if decoy jammers work at VHF or UHF, does anyone have sources if that exists or not?

Also if there are 10 decoy jammers jamming a single radar does the decibel jamming noise added up or that is somewhat related to power behind it such as one 10 watt decoy jammer creates a 10 decibel jamming noise, 10 decoy jammers create a 20 decibel jamming noise and 100 decoy jammers create a 30 decibel jamming noise to a single radar, etc. I might be totally off on watts and jamming noise associated with it, but I just want to get to the bottom of it to better understand EW suppression if anyone can explain that in very simple terms. Thanks.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post18 Jan 2021, 00:21

Is the Pantsir a sitting duck or top dog?

https://www.defenseworld.net/feature/42 ... ATEPlOIadM

The excuses that the russians come up with are interesting
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post18 Jan 2021, 00:31

At the same time, in Libya the conflict side, that operates Pantsirs doesn’t possess long range radars which is essential to provide guidance date for the Pantsir’s projectiles. It is also apparent, that there is a catastrophic lack of specialists for working with complex systems such as the Pantsir. They are also affected by the influence of reconnaissance and jamming by ships off the coast of Libya.

Regarding the combat record, it should be noted, that even in conditions of suboptimal use SPAAGM Pantsir-S1 inflicted damage to the opponents, which financially exceeded their own losses.

Now here is an interesting take.
1. Dont the Syrians have S-300 + Panstir? Whats the excuse there?

2. Are they always going to use the excuse that arabs are not trained?

They also mentioned in the article that they think Israel teacked the Pantsir because a cell phone left in the vehicle. I guess they dont realize that there are a few ways that a modern aircraft like an F-35 could track this vehicle.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3551
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post18 Jan 2021, 15:23

hocum wrote:
eloise wrote:The accuracy of cannon isn't very high. We also see how Armenia struggle to shot down slow flying drone

[facepalm again]
Armenia hasn't anymore that old garbage.
Pantsir on goverment tests, 2007 (in stardart ECM surrounding, by the way), target - E95 (subsonic cruise missile/drone's imitator). One cannons' burst and target shooted down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=255&v=u ... e=youtu.be

Pantsirs' battery on exersises (in ECM surrounding too), target - couple of "Saman" training targets, which is refubricated Osa-AKM's missiles (anti-radar missile's imitator). Supersonic, highly maneuvrable, with very low RCS. Two launches, showed one hit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1249&v= ... e=youtu.be

Tunguska against E95 again (suppose black sky, because TV Zvezda channel's exclusive show) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=255&v=u ... e=youtu.be
One burst and hit.

Pantsir tracks small quadrocopter, firstly demonstrate fire and then shoots it down by cannons, some small range because without video editing, by one videosequence (especial for persons who likes video evidences):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=754&v=D ... e=youtu.be

Thor tracks the same quadrocopter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=860&v=O ... e=youtu.be

Well, let's tell us more about how hard is to find and to shoot down slowly UAVs, loitering garbage, and evven mighty cruise missiles. ;)
And I still don't tell something about ECM measures against UAVs and loitering staff, because it is some difficult for me. It isn't my speciality, I will force to use just common words, as all we know who.


Shooting down some target drone or even cruise missile is not hard at all with even remotely modern systems. I've shot down that kind of drones and other training targets with 35 mm Oerlikon guns regularly about 25 years ago. I've also witnessed the same done by Crotale NG systems and even Igla/Igla-M MANPADS. Even ZU-23-2 can do it at the right circumstances and after expending enormous amount of ammunition. In real combat situation there would be many problems with engaging a large number of munitions, drones and decoys. In training (especially live-fire) the crews and vehicles tend to be fully ready with every system operating and communications system operating without hindrance. The targets, their flight paths and timing tend to be known by everyone and everything is very controlled. Often those targets also have features that make them easier to track and engage like corner reflectors and/or heaters/flares to increase their signatures. There is never a large number of simultaneous targets in these exercises due to expenses. Shooting down targets in training is very different to real combat situations due to safety and budgetary requirements.

In combat it's impossible to keep every system 100% ready 24/7 and everything manned and alert. In every system it takes time to get system fully operational and this depends on how high the readiness is. High readiness means short time (like 10 seconds to 1 minute), but burns down crews and the equipment also. Low readiness means a lot less wear and tear but also means a lot longer time to get the system fully operational. Another thing is that enemy will not tell you when they are coming and what kind of weapons, routes and tactics they are using. Probelm is even bigger with stealth as the AD systems will not get early warning about attack and situational awareness is hard to make. So it will take a lot more time to respond to attack than in regular training scenarios. Especially when all systems are very unlikely in full operational readiness. IMO, this is why many modern Western systems (including SHORAD) are now using fire-and-forget missiles and have very low personnel requirements along with great flexibility. There are now NASAMS, Spyder, Barak, IRIS-T SL/SLS/SLM and soon LOWER-AD system, all of which can quickly guide a very large number of missiles from any launcher within seconds to targets pretty much anywhere within the area the system covers. Readiness can be kept very high as only the Battle Management Center needs to have personnel to fully operate the whole system and there is not much that need to be done to get everything to 100% readiness and kept there for a long time. Even then I doubt that shooting down a lot of simultaneously arriving stealthy munitions supported with jamming and decoys would be easy. There is good chance that a lot of those SAMs would be wasted on ghosts (fake targets by EW systems) and real weapons get through the defences. However I think that AD systems are important parts of whole air defence systems to make enemy air attacks as difficult as possible.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post18 Jan 2021, 21:30

eloise wrote:Fighter AESA aren't more dense than ground based AESA, and PESA radar have more reliability problem than AESA since its transmitting power come from the single source of TWT, so if there is any issue with that TWT then your radar is useless. Whereas AESA radar can lost about 10% of T/R modules and can still operate pretty much just as good.


Of course fighter AESA radars are more dense then SAM aesa radars, you have luxury of space in case of ground radars, so you can make have more space between modules and much easier cooling solutions.

One TWT is passe. In Flanker and probable Foxhound BSM you have at least two TWTs, I except Foxound could have more then two if we look estimated radar peak power.

So if one tube fail you still have another, you lose radar power but still you have functional radar.

I would be quite suprise if modern Russian and western PESA ground radars still use just one TWT?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3551
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 09:28

milosh wrote:
eloise wrote:Fighter AESA aren't more dense than ground based AESA, and PESA radar have more reliability problem than AESA since its transmitting power come from the single source of TWT, so if there is any issue with that TWT then your radar is useless. Whereas AESA radar can lost about 10% of T/R modules and can still operate pretty much just as good.


Of course fighter AESA radars are more dense then SAM aesa radars, you have luxury of space in case of ground radars, so you can make have more space between modules and much easier cooling solutions.

One TWT is passe. In Flanker and probable Foxhound BSM you have at least two TWTs, I except Foxound could have more then two if we look estimated radar peak power.

So if one tube fail you still have another, you lose radar power but still you have functional radar.

I would be quite suprise if modern Russian and western PESA ground radars still use just one TWT?


PESA ground radars regularly have several TWTs. For example AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel has 2-4 TWTs. AN/MPQ-65 for Patriot has 2 TWTs while the original MPQ-53 had only one. AN/SPY-1 radar has 32 TWTs IIRC! It depends on what the power and reliability requirements are. Of course AESAs are still much more reliable and require less maintenance. It's very rare for a single TRM to go bad but the whole array will still work well (with >90% performance) even if several dozens of those TRMs go bad. So there is still much less need to rush fixing the damaged components in AESA than in PESA. However I agree that modern PESAs are very reliable, although AESAs are even more so.

AESA radars need to have similar element spacing for both air and ground radars for comparable performance. You can make the array thinner (wider spacing) for cost and cooling reasons, but then you get grating lobes resulting in lower performance and poorer LPI/LPD features because a lot of energy is transmitted to unwanted directions (grating lobes). It also makes the usable Field of Regard narrower. There are ways to somewhat mitigate these problems, but only so much can be done. Nowadays the costs have come down and efficiency improved (less cooling need), so this is rarely done any more in any application. So fighter and ground AESAs have similar spacing and are equally dense when they have same ooerating frequency range.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post21 Jan 2021, 10:23

hocum wrote:By misterious quest both syrian Pantsirs was hited something similar that "Daliah" cruise missile in both videos. But it isn't matter: so many years IAF jumps up and down - and what is sucsess? 1 Pantsir destroyed in 2011, another in 2018, and one more in 2019. Couple more hited in Idlib by turkish forces. Nothing about Buk-M2Es. One F-16 was lost. Looks some disappointed. Where is total crushing of syrian air defence? Looks like lazy skirmish between aviation and air defence, with negligible casualties on both sides and exchange airborn minitions for air defence missiles.
If you want to reach something more, you need to fly ahead more decisively, and your casualties will be much higher.

Then you clearly forget the objective of strike aircraft, the main target of fighters are not the air defense, the main targets of fighter are the infrastructures. If your air defense can't protect the infrastructure then they already failed their main objective, even if they survive.
Israel basically bomb Syria as if Syria have no air defense at all


hocum wrote:Well, and this person require from me proves on each my statement...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_II
Reaction control system (RCS). Provides pitch, yaw, and roll control during the midcourse portion of flight.
Only re-enter... Are you sure? So why did warhead have baloon with pressure gas onboard and some nozzles? Again: there isn't quality difference between ARRW and Pershing-2 from air defence looking. There wasn't predictible trajectory, that was because USSR forced USA to destroy all Pershings. May be quantity differences will be, may be no. Even if will be - S-300V** passed through 2 large modernizations from this time and its potential grows up almost 10 times. Wouldn't easy breackthrogh by single ARRW.

There are very big different between the Reaction control system which can change the lateral position by dozens meters at most and the aerodynamic maneuver of boost glider which can literally change the lateral position by hundred - thousand of km. It basically the different between agility of a road roller and a fighter aircraft, just because they can both change position doesn't mean they are equally easy to intercept
unnamed.jpg


hocum wrote:So less target speed and manuevring, so easy to shoot it down. Let's look my last videos again and fully, don't forget to turn on english subtitles. :)
That is because designing and producing very-very slow loitering munitions isn't good idea. US AF tries Tacit Rainbow many years ago, and didn't impress. China didn't impress by Harops/Harpies and even rejected to upgrade it. This garbage is expensive staff against weak enemy only. Good for spread military budget, bad for real war. Worse than another existing weapons, it is more correct. But better than nothing, of course.

:wink: yeah, your last video still showed all the targets which US said they would attack actually destroyed :mrgreen:
also China didn't reject loitering munition


hocum wrote:That look like little deflate. :) Let's find 10 differences:
Image
You even don't know how arctic modification of Thor looks like. So, you may sure that Earth is flat as well. :?

:wink: the sharp corner of the tracks has quite a bit different signature from the inflated decoys though and I don't think that balloons decoys can spin its radar either
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post21 Jan 2021, 10:26

milosh wrote:Of course fighter AESA radars are more dense then SAM aesa radars, you have luxury of space in case of ground radars, so you can make have more space between modules and much easier cooling solutions.
One TWT is passe. In Flanker and probable Foxhound BSM you have at least two TWTs, I except Foxound could have more then two if we look estimated radar peak power.
So if one tube fail you still have another, you lose radar power but still you have functional radar.
I would be quite suprise if modern Russian and western PESA ground radars still use just one TWT?

elements spacing on phased array are affected by wavelength. Secondly, on PESA, you rarely have more than 10 TWT, most of the time, you have 2-3 TWT. Whereas on AESA, you have at least 500-1000 T/R modules, it is more likely to have 1-2 TWT broken than to have 200-300 T/R modules broken
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 33 guests