The Soviets advocates (propagandists) often seem to fudge/misrepresents the range figures of their radar by omitting the size of the target or using the vague term “fighter size target” aka “fighter-type-of-target” where as the US usually use 5-sq m (a scientifically quantitative value). I thought that was a little suspicious so I did some investigating quite some time ago and found out that the “fighter size target” the Soviets were often using was 16-sq m which is more like the radar return of a large bomber (or a battleship;)), it is considerably larger than 5-sq m. So the values that the Soviets (and advocates) often use are misleading. I don’t know if the deception is an oversight or if it is deliberately misleading.
I acknowledge there are several advantages to Zaslon radar over AWG-9, like the scan rate and field of view. However in my opinion the AWG-9 was better.
Another trick I’ve seen people do is compare Soviet RWS scan range to US TWS tracking range, without mentioning what mode they were in, so they were trying to compare dissimilar figures as if they were the same (to artificially inflate the Soviet figures).
In order to compare figures properly they must be the same type of figures and complete. (units, target size, mode).
Radar: NIIP N007 S-800 SBI-16 (RP-31) Zaslon or Zaslon-A
electronically scanned phased-array fire-control radar (NATO `Flash Dance’) in nose; search range of 108 n miles (200 km; 124 miles) in clutter-free forward sector; range in rear sector 48 n miles (90 km; 56 miles); capable of tracking 10 targets and attacking four simultaneously….. with a detection range (for a target with 16 m2 (172 sq ft) cross-section) of 200 km (124 miles) and a tracking range of 120km (74 miles).
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1601&catid=255
So the TWS range of the AWG-9 is 90 nm (104 mi; 167 km) with a 5-sq m target
http://www.novia.net/~tomcat/AWG9.html
So the TWS range of the SBI-16 is 64 nm (74 miles, 120km) with a @ 16-sq m target.
So the TWS range of the SBI-16/ Zaslon is 97 nm (112 miles, 180km) with a @ 19-sq m target
It is still unequal values because the target size is different, however it is obvious that SBI-16 that the radar is inferior to AWG-9 by a large margin.
Anyone want to crunch SBI-16 numbers into 5 sq-m? 😉
I’m not sure if these figures are correct or my interpretation.
I challenge the commonly accepted claim that Flash Dance radar was the most powerful radar.
AWG-9: “The output power is 10.2 kilowatts”
http://www.jolly-rogers.com/airpower/f-14/f-14-av.htm
“Zaslon is double the weight of the AWG-9”
Zaslon: “Average power transmitted is 2.5kW.”
http://www.hostultra.com/~migalley/zaslon_radar.html
“The AN/AWG-9 is an aircraft weapon control system that can simultaneously track up to 24 targets and guide missiles to 6 of them.”
http://www.novia.net/~tomcat/AWG9.html
Zaslon: “It is capable of tracking 10 – and engaging 4 targets simultaneously at a max range of 120 km(max detect range of fighter-type-of-target: 200 km).”
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/aircraft/foxhound.htm
Note; the above quote and link is one of the many sources that use vague unscientific jargon (“fighter-type-of-target”) that seems to be misleading and overstating the range of the radar.
I’m not sure my interpretation or the figures I am using are correct. For the most part I have listed sources so you can investigate yourself. I am not vouching for the sources, if there are any discrepancies in the data or my logic feel free to try to dispute with data, logic and sources.
The range performance of Zaslon-A seems to be close to that of the ASG-18 in the B-58 Hustler Snoopy that was used in 1960 (development started in 1958).
—–
When you make comparisons you need compare the same type of figures.
—–
For example: Guy “A” catches a fish and says it is 12 m long. So guy “B” claims he caught a fish that had a length of 13, therefore he claims his fish is longer. However guy “B” either through neglect, misunderstanding (assumptions) or deliberate misrepresentation (lying) didn’t mention his fish was 13 mm long, therefore in fact it was a smaller fish. It is a flawed comparison, by comparing dissimilar types of figures as if they were the same.
——
Another example: The city guy says his Honda is fuel-efficient because he gets 20 miles to the gallon. The salesman claims his Cadillac SUV is more fuel-efficient because he gets 25 miles to the gallon. It seems to be unfair comparison because the city guy seems to be describing the MPG of city driving and the salesman seems to be describing MPG of freeway driving. It seems to be a flawed comparison, by comparing dissimilar types of figures as if they were the same.
——
It’s like how some people use unequal types of figures to misrepresent the range of missiles, the range calculated by hit probability is not the same type of range as true/normal/semi static (equal altitude, minimum launch speed, at a stationary target) range.
They seem to using the best-case scenario of hit probability rather then use the true range of a missile. They of course are fudging the numbers of the range if they assume the launch aircraft will be at a higher altitude and add it, add the launching speed of the launching aircraft, and add the launch speed of the enemy an assume he will be closing.
To consider all those parameters in figure the range in not realistic, so reputable people don’t do it 😉
US don’t do their math that way unless they are figuring “hit probabiliy”. But that obliviously is not the same thing as the true range.
—
Detroit (US automotive manufactures) played a similar number game (con/deception) with horsepower.
Back in the 1950s Detroit used to rate their power in ICH this made the numbers be artificially higher and more impressive to push sales. Back in the 1960s cars were getting too much power so the government put a limit on the amount of horse power a car could have, in there regulations the forgot to state the type of horse power. So Detroit started fudging their figures by measuring their horsepower differently. They originally were using ICH then the changed too shaft horsepower, then they changed to taxable horsepower. All to make their engines look as if they were getting less powerful to the government when they we in fact getting more powerful. 😉
I think in this is the 70s about the time of the gas shortage I think the US government changed the language in the laws to specify the type of horsepower. Between the gas crunch and the regulations brought the end of major production of muscle cars.
Sign In
June 4, 2007 at 8:54 pm