panzerfeist1Finally some information on the SU-57 to get the board back on track.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]262251[/ATTACH]
old SU-57 computer is on the left and their new computer for the aircraft is on the right. (more space the better)
“- multichannel optical duplex Fiber Channel interface (24 channels, 1 Gbode);”
I have heard the SU-57 had 8 gigabits of throughput for data. and When I just highlighted the sentence on google translate instead of the whole article it said gigabit instead of Gbode. And since 1, 2, 4, 8,16,32 and 128 gigabit fiber channels exist and that they have 24 channels that support 1 gigabit each this cranks up the SU-57 throughput to 24 gigabits of throughput.
F-35 went from using firewire to 2 gigabits of throughput to fiber channels according to this researchgate source I have. But Harris says they will crank up the throughput for the F-35 as well. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258437078_Scaling_Star-Coupler-Based_Optical_Networks_for_Avionics_Applications
“For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter uses a
2Gbit∕s fiber channel and two 32-port electrical switch
modules for its high-speed data network”
I know Harris is increasing the throughput for the F-35 anyways https://www.harris.com/press-releases/2017/06/lockheed-martin-selects-harris-corporation-to-upgrade-f-35-lightning-ii. But the only thing I found is just a 2 Gbit fiber channel and 2 electrical switches that account for 64 ports. So what can be plugged into these 64 ports? Firewire? Ethernet? I feel like computer systems for aircrafts are barely talked about in any aviation forum.
If anyone has an image for the F-35’s computer as well let me know about it on the F-35 thread on this forum.
panzerfeist1@moon_light
“Neither does T-14
You bash APA but then proceed to use RT? Do I have to point out that they did’t even use accurate T-14 model?
or that they think Mach 8.7 shell can be neutralized with 12.7 mm cannon? If you believe that then you have the critical thinking of a 5 year old. “
Oh you were actually being serious? Although there are more multiple sources that have suggested the T-14 will use a 30mm anti-aircraft for a replacement and many sources stating the Sprinter missile can engage aerial targets as far as 7.4 miles or 11.9kms than go on bashing a news source in which I can bring up multiple new sources but I will feel like I am only wasting my time like I have had with another individual where by showing that certain modules exist along along with another source that modules are present in an aircraft a year later. Although I feel for him no one likes it when a country introduces an idea 1st before another country has plans with it, along with tanks that can engage aerial targets.
“or that they think Mach 8.7 shell can be neutralized with 12.7 mm cannon?” You made that up not them
“Before you babbling about engagement range of Sprinter, try to find us a single real photo of that missile. You can’t even find a cgi picture of that thing.” They do have anti-tank missilesi n which the sprinter is labeled as such to engage aerial targets acccording to multiple sources anyways. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O9QvzmtLzAU/VWreXGPqYbI/AAAAAAAAUgQ/qKsSkoCWHOg/s1600/Armata_main_battle_tank_Russia_Russian_defence_industry_military_technology_line_drawing_blueprint_details_large_001.jpg missiles look different than the Refleks that are present.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/central/images/a/ac/Armata-tank-t14.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151128205634
@Rall
“We do not know if this new engine will be good or not. You know current engines have a short life cycle, a big maintenance and they are unreliable. Indians are dissapointed with russian engines on its fighters. You are very optimistic, and we do not know nothing about new prototype and when will entered in mass.” You seem to enjoy pulling conclussions like everyone else has done on this thread anything Russian related without results coming in 1st. India has not contributed anything and their stated disappoint can also be drawn by the fact they cannot get a technological transfer of the aircraft. Not really being optimisitc its people drawing conclusisions even when the aircraft had a successful flight test last December
For example if I conducted an experiment on this forum this is how it would go.
NASA having plans of using solar panels for Mars mission although nuclear energy was an option. moon_light, Garry, Mig-31bm, Shania, Spudman and you would go Yay.
Roscosmos having plans using a nuclear reactor for Mars mission even though they explained they ditched solar energy because of travelling distance away from the sun, also mutliple cases harrnessing nuclear energy and experiments like the Burevestnik missile being conducted. Same individuals mentioned above: WTF man thats not right, than proceed to draw conclusions. Not really against 4chan /k/(example http://boards.4chan.org/k/thread/38863155) or F-16.net mentality(example http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53658&sid=adc5cf7410f21e5259521a6f9a5bd298&start=510) but I would really like them to atleast surprise me once where they had doubts on claimed spcecifications on what the US claimed. Although I thought this forum was suppose to be about the SU-57 in its entirety than talking about the F-117 or tanks I will disengage responding to anyone now to get this forum back on track. So consider this my last post…….For now
panzerfeist1@moon_light
“Afghanit must have Doppler processing too, ” No **** I was implying that the other APS do not have any radars that can engage helis and drones like the T-14.
“T-14 does not have dedicated anti aircraft cannon nor anti aircraft missiles, what it has is 12.7 mm cannon and ATGM that can be used against helicopter, this is not that much different from T-90 or Merkava.”
Ahh man when will you quit humiliating yourself like this? I feel like your doing this on purpose like the J/apg-2 and other incidents you had to let people know more about specific equipment(which is not bad of course). Also please do never accuse other users here of having a bias since you make it look too obvious trying to nerf the tank as much as possible. https://www.rt.com/news/234363-armata-tracked-armored-platform/ “The tank’s turret will also carry a 30 mm sub-caliber ranging gun to deal with various targets, including low-flying aerial targets, such as attack planes and helicopters. “
“Sprinter is believed to have an air defense capability as the Russians, and many client states that may wish to buy the Armata are afraid of Western attack helicopters such as the AH-64E Apache Guardian.” There are multiple sources stating Sprinter can engage aerial targets.
Even T-14s outrange 8km an/apg-78 radars and 8km missiles on apaches. A 4 million dollar tank wasting a 35 million dollar heli.
“he also use zoltan interview, anechoic chamber chart.” Thank you I finally notice that now and I am convinced.
@stealthflanker
“The best remarks they have was from their VHF radar manufacturer about Chinese Ballistic missile which have 0.001 in X band but much larger 0.6 in VHF.”
There is a datasheet where they claim it detects 1m2 at 480kms with a 360 degree scan and 1m2 at 510km at a 90 degree scan and that regards VHF, L-band and S-band being used. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ee1ac2b9c03312ac2100837d1c0c5eb3
China to me has similar capabilities. http://www.deagel.com/news/China-Introduces-New-AESA-Radar-for-FC-1-Fighter-Jet_n000017185.aspx
“According to the report, the SLC-7 has a tracking distance of more than 300 kilometers for ballistic target with a radar reflection area of 0.01 square meters.” Tracking in other words using a fire control band radar like L, S or X-band. And I am assuming the YLC-8B offers better performance than this but no statistic values regardin RCS. This is to be integrated to the HQ-9. But it seems china still purchases S-400 batteries so I wonder if anyone knows its possible for them to integrate these radars to the S-400 missiles. Also if anyone has info on the RCS tracking of Voronezh-SM by 2020 let me know.
@Rall
“The patent of this plane is clear, they try to design an aircraft with an RCS between 0.1 and 1 m2. Their reasons will have, but that is not the fault of the West or that the Americans can design and manufacture aircraft with RCS the size of a marble.” And they gave an estimated value of the F-22 falling between that range and even admitting it being lower in RCS and they might have been regarding just the angles than the materials. Who has better materials I remain neutral on. Such instances why is the US army viewing it impossible turning invisible in 2015 while Chemezov claims an invisible helmet which might likely be displayed at this coming army expo. Another example shows that it looks like they discovered a way to make soldiers invisible in the infrared field. https://www.newsweek.com/stealth-sheet-invisibility-cloak-hide-soldiers-drones-989959 While the Russians said they already implemented the technology. https://www.sott.net/article/381159-Russian-camo-goes-invisible-in-infrared-remission
“Russian officials have said that the Su-57 is only slightly superior to a Su-35 S (a legacy fighter), so it does not interest its mass production. Have the Russian officials lied?” Well how long ago was this said even things can change on the SU-57. Although I do not understand why people like yourself keep ignoring that they are undergoing tests for newer engines and it would not make sense to mass produce older engines when the newer ones are underway.
panzerfeist1“Others reasons apart from pathetic size? such as frequency, cooling ? or that first and foremost it is a sensor for active hard kill and will need to operate with extremely high PRF while a long range radar will use medium-low PRF?”
Yes its a sensor for active hard kill. But there is a reason why Trophy and AMAP-APS have a very limited range one is doppler the other LADAR. The T-14 is built to be fitted with anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft missiles to do that you need a good decent firecontrol range to engage aerial targets.
“SNR-125 chart was there already, asking for a chart isn’t bias, what bias is your obvious opposite attitude when you receive information about F-117 rcs and Afghanit”
Aus airpower? Really and you are getting upset with my source? Where did aus-airpower get that reference from? Even I got bashed before using them as a reference.
“Is there a legitimate source on the Afghanit radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in?” Paralay gave a helicopter range will it be engaged.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/06/idn-take-know-about-russias-latest-mbt.html
“The tank is equipped with the 26,5–40 GHz Active electronically scanned array radar that has a range of 100 km, which is mainly used by the Active protection system. Up to 40 airborne or 25 ground targets up to 0.3 m in size can be tracked simultaneously. The tracking system provides an automatic firing solution to the destruction of the target, which can be then transferred to either the APS or the main gun control computers.
I guess not just one source says 100km.
@Rall
“Are there some site with this kind of information? i think 28 kms are many kms for a litle radar of a missile. Maybe if missile is very big with a big radome it could be and RCS of the target is very big too. With normal size BVR missile and rcs of the target around 1 m2, i dont think it can track it around 28 kms…”
GaN mmics are used, no one knows how many though. The source was provided way ba ck on this forum. “aviationweek.com/awin/japan-upgrading-60-f-2s-aam-4-japg-2
““The crucial claim was that the AAM-4B could switch to autonomous guidance at a 40% greater range than either of the other two missiles and would similarly outperform what was expected to be the 2009 standard of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder). In a 2010 paper, the ministry attributed the seeker’s greater performance to the higher transmitting power available from the AESA.
The implication is that an F-2 firing AAM-4Bs can stop tracking the target for missile guidance much sooner than an unmodified F-2 can—and officials tell Aviation Week that the key aim of the project is indeed to increase the range at which an F-2 can turn away. “
And I already gave an example of the 20km range for the R-77 where it relies on its own host radar……Its up to you to believe this or not but I am not forcing anyone on anything based on their beliefs. My own opinion is that there are more modules on the afghanit than there is one a missile. Technology progresses fast. I believe Japan had to make a 20% size reduction but there newer modules would offer the same range or better range performance since some have to be removed for JNAAMs to fit on the F-35.
“it can track a 3m2 airplane from 200 kms in normal search. This is a very big radar inside a big radome.” – Oh please the Ka-52 Katran can spot a 5m2 target at 200kms. No way the SU-35 is on par with their helis.
As everyone talking about the F-22 RCS? Did Noshir Gowadia try to sell any B-2 secrets to Russia? My opinion on who has better stealth material might definitely change depending if the 2018 army expo will expose an invisible Helmet where the US army in 2015 claimed was impossible. Only time will tell but I will not get my hopes up until the damn helmet is shown.
panzerfeist1“No”
finally a solid answer.
“Have you forget the obvious size difference between T-50 side array and T-14 sensor ?”
Ohh I have not forgotten the real question is why was the consideration of a 100km AESA not feasible? If radars on missiles can track aerial targets by themselves at a 28km range. While a T-14 radar which is bigger than a missile radar with more modules cannot track larger targets than certain aerial targets at a longer range.
“Random website say T-14 with APS with 100 km detection range, you dont care about the credility, the plausibility or even common sense. But you immediately question the actual anechoic chamber measurement of F-117 and SNR-125 chart because they shows F-117 with low RCS. ” Yes but no one explained why it is impossible than simply saying size. While radar sizes on missiles can engage aerial targets at a 28km or more range especially bigger targets but yet complaints of a T-14 radar with more modules than a missile cant track a bigger target at 100km is absurd unless you have a reason it is not than this discussion is more than likely over. Asking for an SRN-125 chart is bias now to? your acting like that question alone undermines the estimated RCS value of the F-117.
“or their obvious different frequency?” They have a different frequency? What is the frequency my only assumption is that its a fire control radar to engage aerial targets like it says it can do.
panzerfeist1You can repeat that as much as you want, the English language won’t suddenly change because you feel like it
I called it a theory, because its not proven to work yet, its based off an idea of researchers. Yes or no?
“Based what you have written here, clearly, you will assume whoever said what you want to hear is credible”
Oh how badly I would like to see you get in a debate with him even when you have not proven yet what he said is wrong.
“Your bias is to much for anyone to take you seriously. You don’t care what is credible or plausible, you want to hear that Russian weapons are the best, so you cherry pick your information, you search through Google for any big number associated with Russian equipments without learning basic knowledge of what these paramenters even mean.”
This is the kettle calling the pot black. 100km impossible? A 28km range lock on can refer to a 1m2 target, do you think it will have a bigger range if its a 100m2 target? Do you think a tank will have more modules than a missile radar to engage targets more far away? I still have not heard an answer from any of these people. dropping a plasma project and than picking up another one. Why do you think they would still pursue this project. Nuclear powered cruise missile projects dropped but yet picked up again to pursue. Its biased idiots that quickly pull the impossible card and thinking it wont work. Things are done for a reason.
“to US equipment you do the exact opposite, regardless you how many credible or logical explaination presented, you keep demand more because you don’t like that. ” how by asking questions.
@garry
“Are you still oblivious to the fact that you are that user?.
Because not many here is as knowledgeable as stealthflanker, as a matter of fact, you are no where near his level. ” Do both of you have F-16.net user accounts? I remember getting Arian’s account deleted on F-16.net going from 1 warning to 3 warnings with me. Stating how a tank from Iraq was equivalent to a T-72B in terms of armour protection. I argued that the Assad Babil had less protection than a T-72M for being a downgrade of a downgrade export. another user gets pissed posts a 104-0 F-15 undefeated meme with how superior US aircraft’s were I respond how much of those were downgrades or outdated. Than the entire forum there got extremely pissed and I basically temporarily caused WW3 over there. I am starting to see a similar trend here which is why I am asking? I only lasted like 3 days there.
panzerfeist1” Our old N001VEP on our Su-30MK2 can do the thing, providing Mid-course update for RVV-AE even without itself being an AESA ?” I am not talking about updates. I am talking about the missile using its own radar. What does the N001VEP an aircraft radar have anything to do with a radar on a missile that can autonomously lock on to targets at a certain range? These missiles use their own transmission. RVV-AE even though not an AESA has a radar to engage targets at a 20km range without reliance from an aircraft.
“and this Autonumous range does not say the seeker’s range. But the distance where it goes active and start searching target on its own. ” How does it go active searching for the target on its own without transmission reliance from aircraft in engaging targets? I will give you a hint…..Its called using your own radar. It already stated it uses its host radar system when its activated to follow targets on its own.
“It will have Less amount of module and perhaps even Lesser power due to the fact we may not have 200-250 kW power generation of fighter aircraft. It’s a common sense.” How less of a power and how less of a T/R module count with power is what I am referring to.
And here people are glad KGB is gone while certain users are even more questionable than him.
panzerfeist1J/apg-2 is part of the AESA sensor of the missile it already stated that in that source. AAM-4b uses J/apg-2 radar, K-77M uses Izdeliye-50-1 radar, do you get the hint? You will even see the radar on the K-77M and the radar on the AAM-4b(even though its a picture)
http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/R-77_a001032001.aspx “When the R-77 missile is at a distance of about 20 km its radar homing head activates leading the missile to its target. Means no reliance from aircraft but using its own seeker instead to lock on the target.
“As the missile comes within 20 km (12 mi) of its target, the missile switches to its active radar mode(meaning not relying on transmission from an aircraft but its own transmission). The host radar system(referring to the radar system of the missile) maintains computed target information in case the target breaks the missile’s lock-on.” Remember Japan added a 40% longer autonomous range than the Agat which they clearly stated.
I wanted to see a bigger picture to see the amount of modules on the T-14 since its already stated the SU-57 has 358 for sides. Which is why I wanted a decent comparison.
panzerfeist1@moon_light
“Ask anyone speak English and see if they interpret the sentence the way you do.”
Scientists say metamorphically, I say theoritically because intercepting a needle with another needle researchers viewing it possible is just a theory until proven to work. Theories are based off ideas, intercepting a needle with another needle is based off the idea of the researchers.
“I certainly know more than people who pretend like they have background in Physics. ” Jack Zhang is a legitimate person on quora that does have a background in physics. Look at most of his answers and you will find that out yourself
“J/APG-2 is F-2 fire control radar, it is far larger and more powerful than Armata’s APS radar, aircraft have higher cooling capacity too. APS sensor operate at high frequency and higher PRF
Btw: APG-2 range is longer than 29 km, stop cherry pick your information. “
You have probably have not paid any attention to the last pages going on in this thread which is understandable. Agat missile sources suggested it can create a 20km lock on utilizing its own sensors. J/apg-2 from sources back claims 40% longer autonomous range than Agat r-77. https://defense-update.com/20120314_japan-making-its-f-2-fighter-fleet-more-lethal.html
“The AAM-4B is fitted with a missile seeker featuring Active Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radar and a greatly improved data link. The AAM-4B will be coupled with enhanced J/APG-2 radar that gives pilots a detection range far superior to what they have now.”
AAM-4b coupled with AESA radar what does that tell you?
panzerfeist1@mig-31bm
“SNR-125 operate in X-band and detected F-117 at distance less than 14 km, that support the claim that F-117 RCS is -30 dBsm (0.001m2) in X-band.”
Is there a legitimate source on the P-15 radar that exactly states in its data sheet what RCS it detects at what range in X-band? Or what the P-15 itself can read in noise level and what range it receives that noise?
panzerfeist1@shania
“just look at how big are trophy aparatures… but nobody claim they are for anything else that APS. afganit hardkill component of aps can only defeat horizontal shot, it cant defend agaist top down attack. ” Made in 2005/2006 its an AESA doppler radar electronics can change over time in size.
@moon_light
“I suggest that you open a dictionary and find the definition for the word “Metaphorically”. It is not the same as a “theory”. I already made it very simple: people can say “Usain bolt is lightning fast” that only mean he can run very fast, not “therotically he can run at 220,000,000 miles per hour”.”
I suggest comprehension. I called it a theory because the system is not proven to work yet. That is all hence I called it a theory.
“Bottom line if the plasma is enough to make the missile invisible against ground/aircraft radar, then it will also blind the missile own seeker”
Yeah it seems you know more than someone with a background in physics. The plasma technology was a problem in one of their projects regarding aircraft known as mig 1.44 if I recall correctly…….But having to pick up a plasma shield project again with a missile makes me raise an eyebrow.
“But iam not the only one who notice that. Have you seen how small is the APS antenna?.”
Yes and there are air to air missile with AESA like the J/APG-2 that can create a 28km autonomous lock onto targets using their own transmission power and your suggesting a bigger and newer radar on a tank than a missile cannot get a 100km range?. For all we know the JNAAMs and K-77M smaller in size will more than likely have a farther range than 28kms locking onto aerial targets. That 28 km range on a missile is focused on an aerial target that is smaller in size on radar, than compared to a tank. If a tank had a J/apg-2 sensor it can have a longer autonomous lock onto targets as big as tanks farther than aircraft because of size on radar. https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Radar/Radar_Targets.htm How far do you think a J/APG-2 can have a lock onto a 100m2 target like the B-52 If the 28km was a suggested random lock on to a regular target like a F-16? For all we know the bigger radar on the T-14 than a J/APG-2 can account for a very huge target on a 100km range.
panzerfeist1[ATTACH=CONFIG]261997[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]261998[/ATTACH]
Does anyone have closer images of the T-14 radar so I can closely compare it to the side arrays of the SU-57?
“The near boundary of interception of missiles, shells or rocket grenades is 15-20 meters, and the maximum speed of interception of armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles is 1,700 m / s. In the future, the “Armata” is planned to install an even more perfect protection system “Zaslon”. It will already be able to intercept targets flying at a speed of 2500 to 3000 m / s.” Also if anyone has additional information on upgrading their radar in the future of when? Or in other words when will afghanit be replaced with Zaslon?
panzerfeist1panzerfeist1@mig-31bm
“and even if it is possible why do you or anyone think it is a good idea to give an active hardkill protection on a battle tank a long range radar?.” I think it is as paralay suggested and it is identifying aerial targets. More or less I am guessing there is a reason why anti-aircraft guns were being mounted on the tank. Maybe 100km AESA is overkill instead of lessening the range for what its designed for like targeting helis.
“Don’t just blindly believe something because it fit your agenda. ” No agenda just convincing someone if they have or have not the technology to do such things as another country without backing up proof why they think their country is advanced at everything when that happens to not be the case in some fields like reliance from other countries, no project pursuit of this or that, etc.
panzerfeist1@haavarla
“How would the small drones know if its just a static strobe light(decoy), or actual weapon system? “
The real problem is how would drones get around repellent-1, the peregrine falcoln, the ram designed specifically to take out drones?
http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Vehicles/Repellent-1_a003389001.aspx “The Repellent-1 is an anti-unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) warfare system developed by Moscow-based JSC Scientific & Technical Center of Electronic Warfare (STC-EW) to suppress and destroy small drones in swarm formations. The system has been designed to neutralize drones at a distance of 30 kilometers day/night and with any weather condition suppressing their control systems and GPS navigation system via jamming. The system utilizes a 20-ton MAZ-6317 6×6 truck to protect a wide range of military facilities and mobile units. The cabin is protected against small arms fire and NBC (Nuclear, Bacteriological and Chemical) agents. The Repellent-1 warfare system was introduced in late 2016 with the Russian Armed Forces adopting the new system in 2017. A portable version is also under consideration.”
https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/328140-drone-warfare-new-russian-electromagnetic
“Peregrine Falcon” detects UAVs via multichannel tracking systems in infrared, visual, radio, and radar spectrums at distances of around 100 km. It finds them, locks onto them on radars, and “turns them off.” But if these drones are carrying weapons and can’t be dealt with using electromagnetic spectrums, “Peregrine Falcon” sends their coordinates to aerial defense systems such as the “Pantsir-S1” that mashes them with 30mm rounds. “
“The stationary medium range anti-drone electromagnet weapon is called “Ram” and is especially effective against a massive UAV attack from several directions. When detected, it instantly “builds” an invincible electromagnet field around the base which is impervious to drones. Despite the wide range of frequencies, the radiation is absolutely harmless to people under the dome.
“The main point of these systems is to detect and eliminate small aerial targets unseen to bigger machines and radars from S-400 ‘Triumph’ and ‘Pantsir-S1’ air defense systems. The latter ones created to detect fighters, bombers, missiles, bombs, and other bigger aerial threats – not small-scale drones,” said Dmitry Safonov, a former Izvestia newspaper military analyst.
Even Buk systems come with a EM gun that can eliminate a drone or missile from a kilometer away http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3838264/Russia-creates-death-ray-uses-microwaves-knock-enemy-drones-mile-away.html
@mig-31bm
“you just can’t get the “100 km” value and we haven’t touch the cooling, aperture and clutter issues.”
Unless the tank is in a mountainous region 600 meters above http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm the radar horizon can be possible. The system also comes with 4 UV sensors in case anyone forgets.
Sign In
