panzerfeist1Get killed by adversary missiles or get killed by dirty bombs in close proximity whats the difference anyways choosing the way you die? The rules are the same dont get hit.:eagerness: knock out a diesel generator radars wont get powered launchers will be inoperable whole crew is dead basically. Dirty bomb gets destroyed the same crew is screwed the same way. eat your food slow or fast it ends up in your stomache the same way.But if you are hoping for survivors maybe distance can be applied from a mobile nuclear reactor with SAM crew having radiation suits, etc, etc.
panzerfeist1“The Defense Ministry said it drafted new rules for the transportation of military cargoes that need protection. It said a corresponding order is to be signed by the minister by the end of the year. Besides explosives, munitions, arms and hardware, it has yet another category including laser and ionizing emission sources. The latter include nuclear reactors, Roentgen devices and nuclear plants which power super long-range cruise missiles, underwater attack craft and combat lasers.”
long range cruise missiles I suggest Burevestnik, underwater attack craft I suggest subs with nuclear reactors……Combat lasers. Does anyone know if there are other sources that suggest lasers using nuclear energy because this is making me believe that the peresvet laser has a mobile nuclear reactor.
https://newatlas.com/nickel-nuclear-battery-design/54884/ https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/03/russia-claims-100-times-smaller-n…
I am not doubting their ability to harness nuclear energy but is this info correct and does anyone have Russian sources to which army recognition has got this from because its saying this same nuclear company is now dealing with combat lasers(supposedly peresvet) besides missiles like burevestnik and subs. I believe diesel power generators are used for long range SAMs I am just curious on the possibility of them powering SAMs in the future.
panzerfeist1I am noticing an irritating trend that I wish they would stop using, “calling aircrafts cars” and using a measurement like, “several dozen” example the pterodactyl on a T-14 can fly as high as several dozen meters and the okhotnik will fly for several dozen minutes. Either way thank you for being a bundle of good news with these sources.
panzerfeist1They did admit in their patent that the F-22 has more stealth in their estimates than their aircraft and they have concluded (Both RTI and KRET) that they are behind on electronics but that does not mean they are planning to stop reducing the RCS or find a competitive edge like FICs to close those gaps. Hopefully another certain country closes the gap on missile technology because I would sure like a certain aircraft to have a internal hypersonic missile carry design that would be very beneficial for SEAD. Nothing but ambition and high hopes from their industries :eagerness:
Okhotnik-B presentation for this coming army expo
http://tass.com/defense/1060610 And to verify for everyone that the SU-57 will be presented on this MAKs airshow
“In 2017, a pair of PAK FA (Su-57) fighters demonstrated elements of a dogfight at the MAKS aerospace show for the first time. One of the fighters launched an attack while the other dodged it, demonstrating the plane’s super-maneuverability that allows it to evade an enemy blow. The pilots also demonstrated aerobatic maneuvers, including Pugachev’s Cobra, flights at critical angles of attack and movements at a minimum speed.
The Su-57 is a fifth-generation multirole fighter designed to destroy all types of air targets at long and short distances and hit enemy ground and naval targets, overcoming its air defense capabilities.
The Su-57 took to the skies for the first time on January 29, 2010. Compared to its predecessors, the Su-57 combines the functions of an attack plane and a fighter jet while the use of composite materials and innovation technologies and the fighter’s aerodynamic configuration ensure the low level of radar and infrared signature.
The plane’s armament will include, in particular, hypersonic missiles. The fifth-generation fighter jet has been successfully tested in combat conditions in Syria.”
Hopefully they might shows us one of their hypersonic missile designs.
panzerfeist1[USER=”76365″]RALL[/USER] Did you even look at the patent? They took certain feature from the front in their measurements are you sure their measurements are the same as the US measurements for the f-22? This can also take into account no coatings. Oh i think i told you this repeatedly before and that is there were sources that suggested it had the rcs of a bird.
panzerfeist1[USER=”58228″]mig-31bm[/USER]
“F-15’s radar is far more powerful than Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale’s radar”
” https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg82v1 Any performance on specs? I am not doubting you because this radar is whole lot more new and considerably big.
panzerfeist1[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER]
“
> The tiresome RCS issue:
Russian disregard of stealth and lack of focus on this aspect are taken for granted and hence concluded, that its values are much worse than those of US models. Proofs? Not needed it seems.
Only references we have to Su-57’s RCS are comments from Davidenko and the patent. Values much above those claimed by the West for their planes. But the same Davidenko also confirmed they had similar requirements to the values estimated for the F-22. Such values are averages, not the absolute lowest, laboratory values publicised for F-35 and F-22. So the argument that Su-57’s RCS is significantly bigger than that of US planes holds no water. We just don’t know such values, the rest is pure belief.”
I am not one of those stealth is a scam users. But there was a thread on a certain aviation forum regarding the HAWC missile for the F-35. I said the missile is shown externally on the picture and I provided a source that shows that the SU-57 was putting more emphasis on stealth by having their hypersonic missiles design being put internally. After my 2 posts I believe my post was the last one I could not find the thread on the forum so I believe it was deleted(they are very prideful people when it comes to talking about stealth it seems). I have heard that the F/A-XX and SR-72 has had to sacrifice some physical features beneficial to stealth to handle higher speeds. So is speed now more important than stealth or having a higher altitude is now more important since mach 4 or scramjet designs are the new hype for the future of aviation? If Russian scientists were really that worried about their stealth features they could always go to that certain aviation forum and the users there can help them design the SU-57. Open source intelligence is not that difficult they could have further modified the aircraft’s physical features to meet the expectations of that certain aviation forum but I suggest they have their reasons.
I love the electronics layout of the SU-57 and maybe the maks airshow can provide us what modifications they have done to the aircraft just like our surprise that okhotnik-b will be presented in this coming army expo the last airshow did show the SU-35 had newer jammers so who knows what could have been further done with the SU-57.
panzerfeist1hmmm an estimated 200km range for radar(although not the okhotnik-B they referenced a heavy drone) and the 50-100% increase in detection range next to an SU-57 source. I think this drone differs a little bit from the X-47B and Phantom Ray and that is having an air to air combat role than just only an air to ground combat role. Is this possibility correct? Or I just have to shut up on this board and wait for a month? Probably the last question I will have discussing this drone until a month later :sleeping:
panzerfeist1[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER]
Thank you for the good news again and here I thought we had to wait 3 months until it gets displayed at the maks airshow.
panzerfeist1[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER]
“The avionics are being tested on the Su-57 so those checks are already ongoing
”
http://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c8/4c89c11ae741be234a5f900b3fb41e86.pdf
“The first platform for our latest radar will most likely be an advanced Russian-built unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). We believe the radar designed for a heavy UAV will be able to scan airspace with the 200-km radius. A medium UAV will need a synthetic aperture radar with the 30–50-cm resolution in the ground mapping mode round the clock at any weather. Some of the data gathered will be processed on board and the other will be fed to ground-based command posts.
THIN FILM OWNS THE FUTURE The next step past the 3D technology is a film technology with the use of radio-photon optics that will allow an improvement in the efficiency of electronic equipment by tens of times.”
http://tass.com/defense/1012445
As the press office said, RTI Group is completing R&D work in 2018 on creating a mockup of the X-band radio-photonic radar. Following its results, specialists “will determine a principal scheme of building the radio-photonic locator,” which will make it possible “in several years to build prototypes of super-light and small-size radars for unmanned aerial vehicles.”
I am assuming the Okhotnic-B is going to have a LTCC based radar and since its considered a heavy drone its going to have a range of 200kms.
I think that the Okhotnik-B is going to be a very slow process. They stated 3-5 years mass production of FICs will begin back in their latest magazine and since they said several years back in this 2018 tass report I am assuming the drone can have a ROFAR replacement by 2025 as a prototype being tested. So do you have an agreement that the radar being tested right now is LTCC based or is this the only lead we have?
panzerfeist1[USER=”55194″]RadDisconnect[/USER] [USER=”7524″]paralay[/USER] [USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER] Thank you guys for that info.
[USER=”22168″]Krivakapa[/USER]
“Radar MAWS use antennas which aren’t powerful and have short range so detecting it by enemy fighter which isn’t close isn’t realistic.” Although I dont have RCS estimates the side radars on the SU-34 offer a 1-1.5 meter resolution at 300km and in observation mode that SAR can be 30cm and 3 years ago this company said its working on an AESA 5th gen version. Either way this sounds like a pretty decent far range than it would be considered as short range. As lighting up as a christmas tree someone here has still yet to offer a source of a 240, 360 or 120 degree radar beam target being passively tracked but it is difficult for me to see radar MAWS being by any means inferior if they have widen the radar view on there 3 latest aircrafts(probably 4 if one of their mig-35s carries a certain radar variant) and still have plans for a similiar concept (ROFAR) to follow the same example of a wide radar view. I get it that the majority of other people here feel perplexed about it because their country is not following the same route. China is pursuing the same idea so maybe it is possible that newer aircrafts from the US or Europe will provide a wider radar view.
panzerfeist1Good news lmfs now we will have to await the full flight, avionics test(in 3 months i hope they talk about its avionics at the maks airshow) than eventually the weapons test but i hope the time length is not that far for each tests.
panzerfeist1Rall you are a great help but I will take stealth flankers calculation response. Thank you guys for being great resources.
panzerfeist1“Because that list is arbitrary and assuming that each bullet point has the same weight is stupid. Like how it makes 3 bullet points about false alarm rate and reliability.
IR is better when you’re at high altitude because you’re above most weather conditions. UV is better at low altitude where you have more clutter and missile ranges are shorter, like MANPADS. So a lot of helicopters use UV.”
So you agree and disagree with some bulletin points got it but thank you for the response.
“Su-57 pulling 15 g? What source are you talking about? What’s even the point of that? And when was Su-57 being a UAV? Isn’t that what Okhotnik is for? “
Point of that is just because it comes from a bad source like wiki, bad sources can have reliable information like this regarding your questions.
https://sputniknews.com/russia/20170…lane-computer/
”
“Each such plane becomes a computer center which is able to decide exactly what type of arms and ammo it needs for a specific combat mission. In the UAV mode, the plane can reach its target much faster with overloads of up to 15 G, while the maximum overload a pilot can endure does not exceed 10 G,” said Viktor Pryadka, the CEO of the Avintel Aviation Technologies Alliance.”
If you accuse sputnik or wiki as being bad sources there are some good references sources can contain like as statement coming directly from a CEO. Just dont be that guy that laughs or gets mad at a source he does not like without giving a good explanation which of course you did now so thanks.
[USER=”1724″]djcross[/USER]
“But those SAMs might be homing on the MAWS RF.”
Yes of course this can be done rather if its an aircraft that uses 120,240 or 360 degree radar coverage. But I would like to know if there are sources available to how easily or if it makes any difference at all about a passive radar tracking a 240 degree beam target radar in regards to a 120 degree beam target radar like is there a less error of probability or better tracking than compared to another target, etc.
For example lets say there is a 240 degree radar beam coming from target A and there is a 120 degree radar beam coming from target B. I would be off by 3 meters homing target A but I would be off by 6 meters homing target B. This would not make much of a difference and even if it was to be considered a disadvantage the disadvantage is not that huge. However if I am 10 meters off tracking target A and 500 meters off tracking target B than there would be a big difference.
No one knows if wider radar coverage is a wise idea to implement for su-34s, su-35s and su-57s and they sure as hell talk about 360 degree radar coverage when talking about putting ROFAR on mig-41s and su-57s later. But if you consider wider MAWS RF to be at such a disadvantage than I am sure as hell this whole board would be very interested to hear your thoughts why. I do not want to put you on the spotlight by burdening you with a difficult task but if such sources came to light please provide it if you can.
panzerfeist1”
You just copied and pasted that from Wikipedia.
”
any agreements or disagreement? I can go get the references wiki used? This reminds me of my encounter on F-16.net today(user saying bad airframe I don’t have any high hopes for that board anyways but there are some wise users over there) where I post the SU-57 in UAV mode can pull 15Gs someone accuses me its from sputnik, than I don’t get a response back when I say is the CEO so and so a bad reference if the quote is from him.
Either way interesting choices F-35 chooses MWIR with other additions, the other aircraft seems to chooses the lowest and highest points in the infrared spectrum for certain coverage along with the addition of radar. I wish to see EODAS or MIRES at work but I need to have TS/SCI Poly from both countries 🙁
Sign In
