panzerfeist1, yes, R-77M seems a good update need not only Su-57 but current Su -family fighters.- But you know is not into serial production yet, it is under testing program. It is necesary wait because time before was other update proyects under testing but finally never entered into serial production.

One question, radar of Su-57 is it GaaS or GaN? I think GaaS, but i saw in some places talking about GaN, i think only rumours…

RALL@ if you do not have any real figures on mussile range, then i suggest don’t post at all. And similar if you don’t even know Western A2A missile range, then you certaintly wont know any real Russian made A2A missile range figures.
But regardless you put up wishfully figures to fit your views of comparison.

I talked about information of the missiles that is public domain. So, do not tell me what i need post or not. If you do not like it is not my problem.

There is R-77-1 and R-73M family already. Which, adequate and well compared to the generations of Western weapons.

and evolutions are kinda incremental at best. Mostly software related. We will still see AMRAAM or Meteor with conventional planar array seeker for decades ahead. Phased array seekers are at best in development. Airframes are practically unchanged, no real “lifting body” AAM yet, Have Dash is not produced.

I am not agree.

R-77-1 with around 100 kms data range its miles away from Amraam Aim 120 d (180 km)or C6, and worst situatuon against Meteor with a nez around 90 kms per 20-30 kms R-77-1. R-77 only received 1 update from 30 years ago. R73M can not compete too with Aim 9x or iris-T, do not have ir-imaging and only its 60º off-boresight. All western short misiles are ir-imaging and over 90º off-boresigh.

So no, its outdated weaponry. Of course can be lethal, but its miles away from western missiles in that moment.

@Rall

“
Really Uv sensor works well at low height but poorly at medium and high altitudes, because effect of the ozone. So, its good for advice about coming mampads or surface-air missiles, but not against air-air missiles or airplanes. And IR is much better for medium and hight altitudes.”

Do you agree with Wikipedia’s statement? on the advantages and disadvantages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missil…warning_system

The funny thing is it seems to show that UV has more advantages than infrared.

It seems problem is the quantidy of ozone in medium and hight heights, so if you want to have good misil warning aproaching you will need IR sensors, also uv sensors seems have few range detection in comparison. Although It seems for low height UV sensors is better.

If you can have both sensors, would be the best option, no?

“A question, sensor 101 KS-U only does it works on UV spectrum? I have read contradictory statements that also works in the infrared spectrum … ”

More than likely yes since some reports have stated both UV and infrared. Also it is possible since the F-22’s AN/AAR-56 can do both. I would hate to go off subject on this thread but I would like to know myself why the F-35 went to infrared only on its MAWS instead of also utilizing UV since both have their advantages and disadvantages but using both would be even better?

Ok.

Really Uv sensor works well at low height but poorly at medium and high altitudes, because effect of the ozone. So, its good for advice about coming mampads or surface-air missiles, but not against air-air missiles or airplanes. And IR is much better for medium and hight altitudes.

For this i asked, because if only it works on UV spectrum is a big defect on my opinion.

And there are few information about these sensors.

The only cost figure we have was from the reports you are refering too here, that’s a $70Million per plane.

If that is for the initial 12 airframe, then the cost will fall as more are ordered. Isn’t that the nature of things, as we see in F-35 cost analyses, the more that gets produced, the lower cost.

I read last year that 126 uds for indian air force will cost 25.000 million dollars; this information came from an indian news, no from “western propaganda”. it is around 200 million dollars each Su-57.

Now 1 year after, India will not buy any Su-57 on the near horizon and maybe never, and russian only will buy 12 units, and price magically will down to 70 million dollars per unit. Really funny.

Reality is that russian officials are pragmatic people and no stupid. They have seen Su-57 is very much expensive than Su-35 and the benefits of one airplane over the other, is not proportional to the substantial increase in cost. So they have choose the obvious, not enter of serial production of the Su-57 at this moment.

They need other partners to lower the cost of research and development that will result in a reduction in the price per unit and continue with the current development of the su-57 until it becomes a mature aircraft. So they need firstly do not talk bad about its airplane, and last declaration of Borisov was a great mistake. I am sure they will not to do these mistakes again.

Why wouldn’t you? I believe you misunderstand how fire control radars work. They don’t operate *simultaneously* throughout a 8-12 GHz range. Rather they have that bandwidth and *can* operate within that band on demand. Basically, they operate within a 10-20MHz band that hops around randomly throughout their bandwidth. It’s this hopping ability that allows for low probability of intercept.

A photonics radar would work the exact same. It is not simultaneously scanning the entire 1-100GHz band. It is operating in a 10-20MHz band that can randomly hop throughout that band. You do want this! It takes low probability of intercept to the next level and you can run an algorithm to periodically scan near the high 100GHz region of its bandwidth to find stealth aircraft while spending most time in in the 8-12 GHz region where there is less atmospheric absorption.

But I do agree that the technology is a long way off.
Quick reply to this message Reply
10th July 2018, 12:06 #70 ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Oct 2010
Posts
213
Quote Originally Posted by XB-70
When you’ve obtained multiple bearings to a signal source from known locations over a short period of time then you have located the origin of the source – in real time to a small region of uncertainty.
Who knows the means of locating the F-22’s or whether it was real time or after analysis of mission data, it’s largely irrelavent. For all we know they could have rolled a UHF radar up to the test area to track the F-22’s movements and reactions…. simple fact is, in multiple translations on translation tools, we get this….

“We were probably able to clarify a number of possible and accompanying data on the ability of the F-22 and F-35 to detect our aircraft in the short-term stay of our Su-57s in Syria in February this year – telemetry provided a significant reason for their improvement,” – said V.Gutenev.

to detect our aircraft – Unambiguous, nothing lost in translation
telemetry provided a significant reason for their improvement – Same, also specific

Then we get the full treatment in this thread of the typical deny, deny, discredit the source, deny, try to interpret it in 200 completely unrelated ways, deny, discredit…etc by the local bots. Enough to convince me it’s right on the money and worthy of tipping to defence media to see if they want to run it.

I’ve been saying it for a long time, “stealth” is not “just stealth”. There’s varying degrees of observability between LO to true VLO. The question of which aircraft would more often prevail in an encounter comes down to exploitation of the radar max range equation. If aircraft A has a lower RCS from operationally relevant angles (noticed some of the uneducated in the last thread were talking about the RCS of the very bottom of the aircraft… clueless) and a better radar than aircraft B then more often than not it’s going to get the first shot in an encounter, immediately putting the opponent on the defensive where their SA and low RCS quickly disappear.

At a certain point in stealth design, it comes down to tiny details to get to actual VLO. Turning of screws to a particular angle to prevent the most minute amount of specular return, removal of a canopy frame causing surface discontinuity diffraction, stealth shaping of the inside of the cockpit (as well as a small jammer built “inside” the cockpit at a concentration point), extreme sharpening of all leading edges, closing of airgaps, removal of cavities between the airframe and intakes, mm perfect laser directed application of ram strips to the skin to consistently achieve the highest level of effectiveness.

Meanwhile….

1 – surface discontinuity, corner reflector – causes both specular and diffraction return to source radar … forget the ram, a recent video on Su-57 canopy treatment only stated a 60% reduction in RCS from the metalized treatment
2 – surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft’s axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
3 – surface discontinuity at a normal to the aircraft’s axis causes diffraction return to the source radar
4 – HUD (inside) – specular return through canopy

1 – cavity – causes resonance
2 – cavity – causes resonance
3 – cyclindrical pitots – massive specular return
4 – large levcon cavity – causes resonance

1 – cavity, surface discontinuity – causes diffraction and resonance – not blended with airframe
2 – no sawtoothing and pinching of control surface edge, cavity – causes resonance
3 – fat, rounded leading edges – causes high specular return compared to extremely sharp (1mm diameter) leading edges
4 – cavity – causes resonance

1 – Multiple sources of specular and surface discontinuity return – resonance depending on wavelength
2 – massive surface discontinuity almost at normal to axis – the gaps in these areas are quite large, inches in size

Almost forgot… radar disco ball/infrared headlamp

Brilliant post.