except it isn’t. Does your updated quora prove the existence of E.T. and give the Loch Ness monster’’s Twitter handle as well?
There are zero production versions of the Su-57, and few (2 maybe 3?) pre-production fitted with himalaya for testing. All I’ve see is that the EW system MAY BE updated with GaN arrays, as in they are a possible planned upgrade. And neither the Su-35 or Su-34 have GaN EW systems currently.

spare me the Kret catalogue argument, it is akin to pulling up Raytheon or Northrop’s (rather extensive) list, seeing the production of GaN MMiC and claiming it’s fitted to the F-16V or F-35 etc.

It was something like a year ago people were cheering because it was announced that something like 20,000 GaA T/R modules had been produced for the Su-57. That is akin to cottage industry production volume. Let’s wait for Russia to field any production airborne AESA in volume before claiming GaN EW systems, ROFAR and all the rest.

Except there are no maybes since they directly stated what EW systems are to have them in that catalog. To keep this rather short and simple. You heard of the Tarantula or L-700 EW system correct? Was there ever a previous installed EW system that has went by this name before in 2014? The last time I recall the system being used was back in May 2018. Khlibiny-M, Himalayas and Tarantula were included in the GaN MMIC discussion in that catalog. The L-265 was tested in Syria in 2016 I get it that the L-175 can also go by the name khibiny-M for the SU-35 like the L-265. But there was never a previous EW system that went by the name Tarantul. They have said these systems in 2014 will have GaN MMICs, there was never a previous tarantula system before in 2014, than it was 1st used by some bomber regiment in May 2018. The L-175V offered the SU-34 the capabilities to mask itself, the L-700 offered the capabilities to go mask other aircrafts besides itself.

I wont bother with the in denial responses that come later after this post but at least know this information.

https://www.businessinsider.in/sweden-says-it-built-a-russian-fighter-jet-killer-and-stealth-is-totally-irrelevant/articleshow/67908934.cms

“Justin Bronk, an aerial combat expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told Business Insider that like the A-10 Warthog was built around a massive cannon, the Gripen was built around electronic warfare.

Virtually all modern jets conduct some degree of electronic warfare, but according to Bronk, the Gripen E stands above the rest.”

Acquiring GaN AESA EW is not much of a good sales pitch to outsell F-35s if the F-35s themselves along with EA-18s will acquire the same technology around 2020. According to my updated Quora link answer the same technology is already present on SU-57s, SU-35s and SU-34s. https://qr.ae/TUyFkS

Do not know if this old news has been added before here or not. But I am assuming the reason to have the Okhotnik fly along the su-57 is one of these reasons.

https://www.rbth.com/news/2016/08/01/kret-develops-new-video-data-processing-system-for-pak-fa_616915

“The Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (Russian acronym: KRET, a subsidiary of the Rostec state corporation) is developing the Okhotnik (Hunter) video data processing system to increase the target detection range of the Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) fifth-generation multirole fighter jet by 50-100 percent, according to the KRET’s press department.

“Okhotnik is planned to be integrated with the target sight optoelectronic systems of the fixed-wing/rotor-wing aircraft and other sophisticated military equipment. The system is intended for the electronic stabilization of the images and the detection/tracking of targets in automatic mode. Okhotnik increases the range of target acquisition in harsh environment by 50-100 percent,” a KRET’s spokesperson said.”

Also does this drone have a more stealthy profile than the SU-57 and does anyone have any estimates by how much?

[USER=”71228″]garryA[/USER]

“why is it a dick move?” I got a question. How often do you change your mind? You were previously bashing me on my description of passive radars on that F-35 thread when I last saw the edit, than that changed to only talking about HF radars.

Last time your edit was this, “I never said i was GarryB, and iam not eloise or mig either, but i have the same garryA account in F-16.net too, and we did argue both here and there. Did you already forget ?”

Than you added this part, “It is far off because they are 2 kinds of radar opposite requirements”

Is it really that difficult to make up your mind? I do not bite say everything that is on your mind. I will use screenshots for any conversation we have next time so I could better point out to you what I mean.

“AESA radar have very weak side lobes and their beams are more directional than datalink”

This was not really the point of my conversation so I will repeat what was said in this thread, “Did anyone demonstrate ability to detect LPI radar reception?” I simply gave a source of a passive radar detecting a target like the B-2 from 250kms which of course is a target that has a LPIR. That is it I do not think he was talking about datalinks only just you. If you want to agree or disagree with what the czechs have said that is up to you.

” I haven’t seen afghanit specs with 50 km detection range.”

Referring to their small host radar systems on missiles with this range. Sources have suggested 100km range for the afghanit. Certain someone referred to this being impossible because of size I show examples of small host radar systems on missiles with small target RCS detection at short ranges implying that bigger targets can be seen at a farther range based off of readings of 1990s host radars on missiles in which I believe newer 2014 host radars on missiles can track targets at farther ranges while the T-14 is fitted this radar to do this. Would you like to carry on where he left off?

”

I never said i was GarryB, and iam not eloise either, but i have the same Garrya account in F-16.net too, and we did argue both here and there. Did you already forget?

”

Thanks for the information anyways on the passive sensors. Also thanks for clearing up my own suspicions.

“Did anyone demonstrate ability to detect LPI radar reception? “

I am going to make this thread explode with arguements again just to give a warning before I post this.

https://defence-blog.com/army/anti-stealth-radar-vera-ng-of-vietnam-in-action.html

“Capable of detecting stealth B-2 from a distance of 250km, Vera-NG is regarded as one of the most modern radar systems that Vietnam possesses, reported “

“In order to improve the ability to detect and target stick, including stealth aircraft under all conditions, recently, the unit of the Department of Electronic Operations, General Staff was equipped with several sets of s passive monitoring Vera-NG produced by the Czech Republic.”

“Thereby calculations, early identification and provide the coordinates of the distance, azimuth, elevation units firepower to destroy the targets, including stealth aircraft such as F-modern 22, F-35, B-2”

“Features of the complex tactical reconnaissance Vera passive-NG: operating frequency range: 88 MHz – 18 GHz; Distance reconnaissance: 400 km with 20 m wrong; Number of goals can stick to 200 targets simultaneously.

Provide objective parameters: 3D, 360 degree azimuth; Time to update parameters: 1-5 seconds. Can operate in all weather conditions. Vera-NG can detect targets from very far without being detected.”

Before people start saying what the Czechs claim as BS, just a friendly reminder the US purchased their export version.

Another thing I am seeing a lot in Russian missiles is their mini-host radar systems have greatly improved their ranges to track targets at farther ranges. I think everyone knows where I am going with this so here it goes. A certain someone from Quora did the calculations for me of an estimated tracking solution for a host radar system. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/e8svxq7mlo

reference range of 56km for a determined RCS value of 1.2m2 or 5m2 we got a 5.7 to 3.7km value for a .0001m2 target.

https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php Think of the walking person as a flying missile and the blue lines as the radar beam.

put 3.7 and 5.7km for r, 120 degrees for azimuth, 60 degrees for elevation to determine G as in the width of the radar beam. Values we get for total G width is 12.817 and 19.745kms. We assumed that G is the .0001m2 target meaning we have to divide our G width values by 2. So our calculations for azimuth could mean we could be 6.485 or 9.8725 + or – off target. Russias R-77 could have tracked a 3m2 target at 20kms and Japans J/APG-2 GaN host radar on a AAM-4B missile was estimated to have a 40% more autonomous range than this so we estimated 28kms in our earlier discussion. Although it is hard to reference exactly what the K-77M can autonomously track targets we can use their other missiles as an example of what the SU-57 would use.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/anti-ship_missiles/kh-35e.html “

Its ARGS-35E active radar seeker operates in both single- and multiple-missile launch modes, acquiring and locking on targets at a maximum range of up to 20 km.

” http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/anti-ship_missiles/kh-35ue.html “

Maximum range of passive detection and locking with active-passive radio homing head, 50kms. Both are export version missiles while the 1st one was from 1996.Both missiles are slightly bigger than the R-77 and K-77m however the UE introduced in 2009 and was a export version of the KH-35U Russians keep for themselves. While we have seen LTCC modules in the K-77M in 2014.

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2018/4/10/11190/print/ “The S-500 is expected to able to detect and simultaneously attack up to ten ballistic missile warheads flying at speeds of over 4 miles a second. Its one-of-a-kind self-homing warheads search for their targets and, finding them, switch to an automatic-homing mode.” This technology is now being added to their air defenses.

https://www.era.aero/en/military-security/vera-ng “
Antenna unit power consumption “central/remote site”
230 W / 190 W” Hard to tell if this is more advanced or not when compared to the Moskva-1. For EW good passive sensors are needed and I would not say the Russians are slouches at passive sensor technology since you can find many NATO military officers praising their EW capabilities in Ukraine. F-22 was said to be able to hit targets by just using passive radars(don’t say what range). However looking at how far passive sensors and host radar systems have evolved I would not underestimate this capability on the SU-57. You can turn off your radar but its one hell of a risk.

Jesus Christ I cant even upload the attachments I am wondering when they will fix this forum. http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2683&start=120 Does anyone have a good idea to what the size of the predator drone’s internal weapons bays would be?

GarryA I got some very good source information your going to like that I can proudly say this will be my last post regarding this topic.

“As said earlier, at 2000 km, the 2 degrees beamwidth will be 87 km in diameter,so the area of resolution cell is 5944 km2, you think the slight difference between a fighter and missiles will make a difference when the cell is that big? No, it won’t, you can’t even separate aircraft in a formation apart. “

I found a very good answer for this and I am sure you will be surprised. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dae…133bffae46.pdf

PG6

” the resolution cell size is large, approximately 10 km by 10 km(example of the problem you suggested). Therefore, the signals from small targets that are approximately 100 m long are swamped by the clutter and are thus not detectable without resorting to other means, such as Doppler filtering.

But it seems that pg 7 has the solution to this problem you mentioned.

“By using EVA with an increased subtending angle of ±5° (Fig. 7(b)), the resolution cell size along the cross-range direction becomes as small as 80 m, more than a 100 times improvement in resolution. As a result, most of the beam can be focused on a target, so that the target signal becomes much stronger and sharper compared to the case without EVA. It should be noted that the resolution is determined by the subtending angle, regardless of the locations of the scatterers along the range direction. Also, the distribution of the scatterers can be sparse, but the separation between adjacent scatterers must be random to suppress the grating lobes. “

“No they don’t, when the approach angle reaches a certain limit, the wave will penetrate the ionosphere and can’t bounce back. There is good reason when you look at the coverage illustration of OTH-B radar, it is always a cut fan shape rather than the full shape”

“This coverage is achieved using 5-to-28-MHz radio waves that reflect from the ionosphere. ROTHR is a land-based, high-frequency (HF) radar which can cover a 64-degree wedge-shaped area at ranges of 500 to 1,600 nautical miles.”

I am assuming anything below that 500 nautical miles you have said is a blind spot and cant be covered correct? I realized there was a 60 degree limit for some OTH radars meaning you can not get a 70, 80 or 89 degree coverage to get that blindspot covered but there is something that I believe we have both missed(although it benefits my point anyways of no blind spots).

http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa51.en.html
http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/pic/OTH-SW.big.jpg

The red waves are gigahertz and green waves that you see on that image are the HF waves. and they can cover those remaining 500 nautical mile blind spot by simply just not needing to use the ionosphere.

“Yes, AGL stand for Above Ground Level”

Alright I figured it out. It says 2k which makes me suggest 2000 feet therefore 609 meters hence your 600 meter statement. Thanks.

“What make you think Tomahawk, JSM, JASSM ..etc can’t fly at high altitude?”

I only found out information that the Tomahawk has the capability to climb up 100 meters(unless you got something else). While JSM gives the option
of a high altitude release and low altitude release depending on ranges. Although in my opinion its more preferable to have low altitude missiles that can use buildings or hills as cover from radars and missiles along with the benefit of being below the radar horizon