panzerfeist1[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER] “
A “tennis ball” on the other hand corresponds to an RCS of .0037m^2. That is small enough to be tactically very useful but not so small as to be unachievable for a first stealth attempt. And it is also on a level where you will need a specially designed engine to get there.”
Were they referring to frontal or average RCS regarding “tennis ball”? The comparison they made of the F-22 with the SU-57 is just the average RCS. And just like the F-35(had higher values and now it has lower RCS values than the F-22) there can be a possibility the RCS was further reduced with newer engines and the source I provided here earlier from Tass as latest add ons.
panzerfeist1”
The point is the resolution of OTH is simply too low, you can’t even distinguish individual aircraft in a formation, let alone classify individual missiles/decoys
even with a beam width of only 2.5 degrees, at 2000 km, your resolution cell is a circle with 87 km in diameter, pretty much only useful for early warning”
poor resolution of course.
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandav…ountermeasure/ “
but the main purpose is to get coordinates and movement parameters from a formation of targets be it ships, drones and aircrafts. Also the nice Ventral area aircrafts have in comparison to missiles is drastic. I don’t think there are any airborne jammers as far as I know on aircrafts that can jam HF or stealth material that can absorb HF. I am sure the readings of an aircraft and missile to the amount of surface area they have can be measured out.
“There is a limit to how close you can hop (because otherwise your wave can’t bounce back), it called the skip zone, when you have a blind spot 800-2700 km in front of you,”
OTH radars provide multiple skip zones to cover for those blind areas. I don’t know the exact time intervals it would take for HF waves to reach back to the receivers before sending the next hop to cover the next blind spot.
”
Do you understand why Tomahawk fly at very low altitude while Delihah doesn’t?”
I am going to repeat what you said. “, they can fly both at high and low altitude like any normal cruise missile ” you made a general statement saying “any normal” cruise missiles can fly both high and low I point out some cruise missiles that don’t. What I am saying is be careful what you say.
The new MALD decoys that are not out yet or soon will be have low altitude profiles or say they do but do not give an estimation yet as to their altitude height. One more thing where in the image does it show it can fly 600 meters(I must be blind)? I looked at the aviation source above as well and cant find it. Is it on the part where it says MSL and AGL if so simply what the means to me? But if that is as how low it can fly you can still distinguish it from a tomahawks 30-50 meter altitude estimation. Although I wonder what the US considers as low, mid and high altitude in estimations regarding flight profiles of missiles.
panzerfeist1“Not only that you were completely wrong, but your conclusion is also completely opposite from reality, it feel like you try to come up with a “theory” that suit your agenda then cherry-pick “
Dude relax its a question about passive radars and OTH radars.
1) “You can’t determine altitude so OTH is useless for firing solution”
I got atleast 100 sources that I can point out to you that talk about the direction, height, velocity and position a target is. Sure its not used used as a firing solution but the information provided from OTH radars can be provided for classification purposes.
2) “Because OTH radars have to bounce off the ion sphere, they have a blind range of around 800-1000 km in front of them. If you paid attention, their coverage always show that.”
True that there is a blind range but there are multiple hops at different angles that will provide coverage for those blind spots. See attachment.
”
MALD, ITALD are practically subsonic cruise missiles without a warhead, they can fly both at high and low altitude like any normal cruise missile with the same speed, the same limitation.”
Provide me a source that shows the MALD has low altitude capabilities like the Tomahawk. Your telling me high and low altitude like “”””””any”””””” cruise missile is also wrong. The Delilah missile is considered a cruise missile but has absolutely no characteristics of it being low altitude.
panzerfeist1So looking at the topic of decoys the only way you can discriminate them is by using either passive radars and OTH radars?
I heard that passive sensors go through a variety of parameters to determine the size of the antenna that is either on a missile or an aircraft. This is also depends if its a high fidelity decoy(hard to tell apart) or low fidelity decoy(easy to sniff out) I believe the US and Israel will have better high fidelity decoys because the US bought the export version VERA radars from Czech Rep while Israel bought Kolchuga-M from Ukraine about a week or 2 ago. I think it can be possible for the newest passive radars like Moskva-1 to atleast tell apart what is a missile or an aircraft. But it would be very difficult to tell apart decoys from missiles which brings this next fancy toy into the discussion.
http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems…002916001.aspx The beauty of OTH radars is that they do not give a damn about what altitude you fly at because it uses HF waves that bounce off the ionosphere hence radar horizon does not apply. Decoys travel quite the distance but a radar such as this has quite the distance in detection. This radar’s detection range exceeds the combat ranges of aircrafts. Missiles like JSM, JSOW, HARM missiles with explosives can be identified at closer ranges(glide bombs even more identifiable at closer ranges) because these missiles are to be used at close ranges. Decoys can be launches farther away but that will make it easier to identify as decoys than the use only in close range JSM, JSOW, HARM or glide bombs. So I am guessing the only way to fool OTH radars is to launch the decoys at a closer range(which might be a bad idea since your making life more easier for fire control radars or not if your stealth), I have taken a look into these decoys and realize(correct me if I am wrong) they are released at higher altitudes and have a high altitude profile which suggests the decoys can be told apart from JSM missiles since there ranges have suggested high altitude release at 500km but goes at a lower altitude down the road, low altitude release at 185kms for low altitude flight, so if there are missiles that have the option to have a low altitude release can be identifiable by OTH radars than told apart what they are. So with the usage of passive radars and OTH radars my conclusion is that decoys are only hard to tell apart from missiles(with high altitude profiles) at closer range high altitude releases.
So how much of my assessment here is correct? And are passive radars and OTH radars the only defense against discriminating targets?
panzerfeist1[USER=”1416″]Scooter[/USER]
“Honestly, doubt Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in any real numbers. My guess is they will be “forced” to adapt the J-31 and produce it under license from China”
I got a question was it true when the Su-35 1st came out people thought it would not be great in numbers in the early 2000s until later on they got produced in significant numbers? Was this a false or a true rumor regarding any old forum users here?
panzerfeist1http://tass.com/defense/1039482
“MOSCOW, January 11. /TASS/. A new composite material with enhanced radar wave absorbing properties was used to make the cockpit canopy of the most advanced Sukhoi Su-57 multirole fighter jet and the Tupolev Tu-160 strategic missile-carrying bomber, Russia’s state hi-tech corporation Rostec told TASS on Friday.
The innovative glass coating has been developed by specialists of the Obninsk-based Technologiya R&D Enterprise (part of RT Chemcomposite Group within Rostec).
“It doubles radar wave absorption and reduces the aircraft cockpit’s radar signature by 30% Currently, the coating is applied to the canopy of T-50 (Su-57 aircraft since August 2017), Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, MiG-29K and Tu-160 planes,” Rostec said.
The coating is made of metal oxide layers 70-90 nm thick. In addition to reducing visibility to enemy radars, it protects the pilot during the flight from the impact of ultraviolet, thermal and other negative factors, Rostec stressed.
“The coating weakens the thermal component of solar radiation by more than three times while the integral transmittance index in the visible range makes up no less than 65% and the impact of the ultraviolet component drops by more than 4-6 times,” the hi-tech corporation said.
As Rostec Industrial Director for the Cluster of Conventional Armament, Ammunition and Special Chemistry Sergei Abramov said earlier, this innovation actually has no weak points: its application helps halve the weight of the cockpit’s glass canopy and increase impact resistance and radar wave absorption from 40% to 80%”
[FONT=”Helvetica”,Arial]“[/FONT]
panzerfeist1http://tass.com/defense/1039344
Tass basically referencing China’s SRBM and now referring a 2nd test that at an aircraft was intercepted 250kms. Than seeing the THAADs performance in X-band RCS targets compared to the S-400 is putting me under suspicion that they are setting up a venus fly trap to draw flies(aircrafts) more closer to the system. Russians never announce what targets they have intercepted while the Chinese give ranges for both aircrafts and missiles and of course it can be a brochure specification for both. I am going to keep an eye out if India or Turkey make announcements on their interceptions if possible.
panzerfeist1Something has been bothering me lately about the RCS values of the fire control radars of the S-400 in which I need to have clarified if anyone has info on.
http://aviationweek.com/technology/n…tection-claims
“It retains the basic advantages of VHF: NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.”
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mili…defence-system
”
PLA Rocket Force reportedly shot down a ‘simulated ballistic target’ almost 250km (155 miles) away and moving at 3km (1.9 miles) per second”
2007 fire control radar 4m2 at 390kms, 2015 nebo-m 1m2 at 480kms. However these 2 quotes from those sources have really mindf**ked me. I am not doubting that a SRBM would have a .002m2 RCS in X-band because of its size, less exposed surface area than an aircraft and possibly aerodynamic design but what bothers me is that sources have suggested they have intercepted a SRBM like target from about 250kms away.
anti-ballistic missile is part of its description and it meets the 250km description(china said almost 250km which can be 241–250kms they would have said simply said 240km if it was below but they did not) So we have our missile and it has the speed of mach 6.5 2.2295km/s and the SRBM they tested was able to travel 3km/s.
110 seconds and multiply 2.2295km/s and I got 245.245kms. Multiply 110 seconds with 3km/s we get 330kms than add that to 245kms to determine where it was tracked before it got intercepted at 245kms. An/tpy-2 made in 2008 was said to be able to track .01m2 at 600kms it operates in megawatts like the S-400s fire control radars but yet S-400s are said to intercept IRBMs and MRBMs like THAADs. I am sure that if the S-400 having a 2015 1m2 value at a 480km range would not be strong enough to intercept a SRBM target from far away or even offer way less performance than THAADs. Can someone better clarify this?
panzerfeist1Video of the Israeli F-15 pilot conversation when the canopy went off.
panzerfeist1https://qr.ae/TUnKzZ Analysis on S-400 system and THAADs
https://qr.ae/TUnKzV Analysis on S-400 system and S-500.
I might have that cancerous KGB fanboyism for anyone that looks at the answers I post on that website but besides that. For the 1st answer link is my RCS tracking a little off on the S-400 system’s estimates? 2nd answer link is there any power estimates for the S-500 Yenisei radar? If anyone has the time give me a review.
panzerfeist1[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER] It is by no means LIDAR. Its basically a radar the uses an ultra-widebandwidth with the results of ultra-high resolution SAR which has been the main discussion on China’s research papers and KRET’s claims. US defense industry along with other countries out there seek GaN mmics for the benefits of a wider bandwidth and better SAR resolution. No one knows how far ahead KRET is in this field. So after the laser modules get produced(in production) testing for platforms at the latest suggests 2020.
panzerfeist1@XB-70
I do not want to be too much of a bother to everyone but I will create a separate thread on photonic radar research which implies this will be my last post on ROFAR specifically for this thread to be more focused on the SU-57 than its future features being repeatedly brought up.
“The larger the bandwidth that you transmit the greater the likelihood that it will detect you.”
http://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/29367-technology-trends-for-future-radar
“Furthermore, the increasingly complex operational scenarios demand for more detailed ultra-high resolution (UHR) Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images of fixed targets for classification support in all-weather, day and night applications to be acquired from large stand-off ranges. Such UHR SAR images require very high bandwidths in the range of several GHz, thus supporting the need for broadband Multifunctional RFSystems.”
“However, fully operational MFRFS sensors are not available yet due to a still insufficient bandwidth of AESA antennas based on today’s conventional semiconductor technology. To satisfy the bandwidth needs of an operational EW system, a bandwidth from at least C- to Ku-Band is needed depending on the respective application. Most promising to cope with such broadband requirements in combination with sufficiently high RF power and adequate Power Added Efficiency (PAE) yield is the GaN semiconductor technology.
http://mil-embedded.com/articles/gan-performance-issues-military-applications/
“Radar systems – to take another example – are requiring wider bandwidths and more power for operation. “GaN is proving to be an ideal technology for AESA radar systems,” says Deepak Alagh, Senior Director & General Manager, Mercury Systems RFM Group (Andover, Massachusetts)”
Even the US is pursuing higher bandwidths although it seems photonic radars go more huge on that. So why would the US and Russia want wider bandwidths specifically the higher ones? Do the disadvantages really outweight the advantages that much?
1. ” Signal degradation in upconversion and downconversion is similar for moderate multipliers”
yes the article mentioned the same thing.
“Similar with electrical frequency multipliers, a photonic frequency multiplier also causes signal degradations. Firstly, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) may be degraded. In the experiment for target detection, in-band SNR of the electrical IF-LFM signal is measured to be 86 dB”
However, the conclusion stated this, “The LFM signal generated by optical frequency quadrupling has a very large bandwidth that is required in a high-resolution radar. Besides, photonic de-chirping of the reflected echoes avoids the use of electrical frequency conversion and high-speed ADCs, making it possible for real time processing of a broadband signal in radar receivers. Performance of the proposed method is investigated through an established radar operating at K-band with an 8-GHz bandwidth. The experimental results confirm the feasibility and good performance of the proposed radar scheme, which is a promising solution for real-time ultra-high-range-resolution target detection.”
They explain that the usage of electrical frequency conversions could be avoided.
2.” helps to counter stealth technology, but they make your radar easier to pick up by a RWR”
I mean passive sensors like RWR can pick up signals like VHF, UHF and SHF in general are you saying it is more easier to pick up a higher frequency signal than a lower frequency signal? I have read that the GaN jammers that the US or Russia has pursued now have the ability to jam signals from VHF and UHF. When a proposed radar at a high frequency is using a lower bandwidth does it generally mean using a lower frequency
3.The negative effects could be diminished while allowing higher frequencies by designing faster ADCs, but this is true with current radar systems as well.
Not trying to be a comedian but they explained also in that conclusion stated avoid the use of faster ADCs.
The chinese article went from negativity to oh its a feasible option. I have no idea how far ahead KRET is in this field but I am impressed in their EW systems without a doubt. I hope in the MAKS 2019 airshow they will show a prototype or completed version of the system with some good details if possible.
panzerfeist1[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER] @bring_it_on
I am probably going to be known as the guy that wont shut up about ROFAR. But that is what the Su-35 might receive.(I have an odd feeling you guys baited me back to this thread)
https://russia-insider.com/en/goodby…-radar/ri24947
“In accordance to his (most likely his sources) info, Russia not only already has radiophotonics radar, we knew that device existed and was working in lab, but that it will be on trials on Su-35 as a platform before 2021 and that it will be a serial production device. “
http://tass.com/defense/1012445
The new station will generate a radar signal by converting photonic crystal laser energy. The production of such lasers is already beginning in Russia, the press office said.
“RTI Group is launching the first technological line in Russia for the production of lasers for making promising radio-photonic radars,” the press office said.
RTI Group CEO Maxim Kuzyuk was quoted by the press office as saying that “we in RTI are seeking to make the production cycle of integral radio-photonic circuits for radars fully local to participate effectively in the rapidly developing area, which can become a guarantor of the countryfs security.”
Starting production for laser modules sounds like a silent confirmation that their proposed radar works.(doubt they waste money for nothing if it didnt work)
Also I have questions for this board.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14306-y#Fig5
“ In our experimental demonstration, the 8-GHz bandwidth is restricted by the bandwidth of the antenna pair. As for the proposed photonic signal generation and de-chirp processing, the operation bandwidth is only limited by the electro-optical modulators and photodetectors. Thus the proposed radar has the potential to be operated with a bandwidth of tens or even hundreds of gigahertz, making it possible to achieve an ultra-high-range-resolution below 1 cm.”
“The LFM signal generated by optical frequency quadrupling has a very large bandwidth that is required in a high-resolution radar. Besides, photonic de-chirping of the reflected echoes avoids the use of electrical frequency conversion and high-speed ADCs, making it possible for real time processing of a broadband signal in radar receivers. Performance of the proposed method is investigated through an established radar operating at K-band with an 8-GHz bandwidth. The experimental results confirm the feasibility and good performance of the proposed radar scheme, which is a promising solution for real-time ultra-high-range-resolution target detection.”
When they are saying the 8ghz bandwidth is restricted by the bandwidth of the antenna does this only apply to AESA and PESA radars? (photo-detectors and electro-optical modulators determine bandwidth for Photon radars)
Also there have been talks about photon radars operating at higher frequencies at lower bandwidths. Has this been done with AESA or PESA radars?
”For example, at 400 kilometers it can not only see a person, but even recognize their face.”
”ROFAR will allow us to see a plane, located 500 kilometres, as if we are 50 metres from him at the airport”
-Mikheeyev
I actually feel really embarassed to finally realize that he was talking about Ultra-high resolution SAR. I believe to achieve ultra-high resolution you would need frequencies like these.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica…lution_imaging
“Existing SAR systems are often limited in resolution by their small bandwidth of below 10 GHz. In this contribution an ultra-wideband 80 GHz FMCW radar sensor for SAR imaging with 25.6 GHz bandwidth is presented. It is based on a custom low-power SiGe-MMIC including all high frequency components, using a nested PLL concept in combination with off-the-shelf PLL synthesizer ICs. In single direction radar measurements, a resolution of 8.09mm is shown. Additionally, results of SAR measurements with a point target show that a good spatial resolution of 12.0 mm ~ 8.1 mm (Tukey window, ƒ¿ = 0.25, -6 dB width) is achieved. Furthermore, high resolution SAR images of a bike acquired with the sensor are presented”
hence why they were bragging about 100ghz.
“All this works and performs the location – we emit an ultra-high frequency signal, it is reflected back and we receive and process it and get the radar picture of an object.” -Mikheeyev
When saying UHF signals(300mhz-3ghz) give him a radar picture(The radar picture examples he gave sounds like ultra-high resolution SAR examples)of an object. Is he referring to a radar being able to operate at higher frequencies but with a low bandwidth(preferably UHF)?
Sources have told me 10 will have the N036, but with the order of 15 and that the engines are expected to be completed by 2023 along with their laser module production starting about 5-6 months ago based on the article (or more). I see no issue that is would be an added feature for the newer SU-57s or SU-35s down the road.
panzerfeist1Don’t know if this has been posted way back in this forum.
This is the Mi-8 helicopters imaging system. 0:36 seems to offer some good detail on the moon.
panzerfeist1It seems with a little more research the weight limit for an internal load of the aircraft is 4,200kg. Some say it has the 3,800kg iskander weight, tass says 4,300kg, other western sources have suggested 4,400 or 4,500kg. The reason I brought up the PJ-10 in comparison to the NG missile is because the weight has been literally cut in half by just taking out 0.2 meters off the diameter and taking out 3 meters from the length. If the approximate length for each internal weapon bay is 4.6 meters with a 1 meter width the regular kinzhal is more than likely going to have a little more to be cut off which is more than likely going to reduce the kinzhal missile to nearly or about half its weight just to meet the bare minimum of having atleast 1 kinzhal missile to be housed in. But by reaching that bare minimum standard of just trying to make 1 kinzhal barely fit inside you have almost enough weight to go house another missile in(in which there is also enough room for another to fit). Also with those new engines some suggesting to be operational by 2023 or a little more if testing goes according to plan. I think with those new engines the internal weight limit load can be increased.
Is my analysis right or screwed up?(I seem a little confident)
Sign In
