Problem,what is the overall reliability of a modern radar.
Let’s say: in case there are 100 PESA equipped planes in operation at the same time how much of them would have to abort mission or have their performance hampered on average?

The typical life for fighter aircraft tube transmitter is around 200-500 Hrs. I have no information on rate of failure tho But once failure happen in that particular part your radar is totally inoperable.

Exactly the same way people are thinking about an AESA.

well people still surprised when i told them that reliability is the only principal advantage of AESA compared to PESA.

Which weapon goes into the W-Bay, and which dont?

Perhaps the KAB-1500 one as it like 82 cm. Not gonna fit into the bay. Newer weapons and smaller KAB-1500 however might fit.

We haven’t even have clear idea on what ROFAR is… whether it’s a Quantum radar or an AESA with optical true time delay beamsteering, where phase shifter is basically replaced with optic fiber.

There can be no technical discussion without even a basic agreement on what ROFAR is.

Pretty interesting, close up high quality footage of VKS airstrike on an undergound bunker in Idlib- clear use of BETAB concrete penetrating bombs. Unguided, but accuracy is good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWOELkf2Yo8

The bomb went so fast. O-O can only catch the glimpse of it.

and talking about MiG really reminds me of Phazotron… when they will finally finish the Zhuk AE/FGA-35 ?

The NIIP’s N036 already entering Ryazan’s serial production facility. Thus in much better shape in terms of maturity, but by no means this radar will have MiG offspring. unlike Osa or Bars-29.

What’s the benefit of the Saturn nozzle? I also think PYBBN type nozzle is better solution since you get true axisymmetric TVC and you can create yaw without causing roll.

perhaps they look at angle of deflection possible. The thing one needs to wait is whether Saturn will eventually do what it promised for a long time, a full 3D TVC capability. as far as i remember, saturn had a work of such TVC with 8 deg deflection in horizontal axis with 15 in vertical.

and we may need to include politics between manufacturer as usual, where the PYBBN seems to be favored for Chinese.

[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER] – He is referring to the fact that your analysis does not take into account variation with time. But your equations are indirectly time dependent. From your earlier post.

The “delta theta” in the equation above is defined as the length of the aperture created between your wingtip jammers multiplied by the cosine of that angle phi – which is the angle between the jamming aircraft’s actual heading vector and its apparent/false vector – and then divided by the range. Notice the two little boxes in the picture which denote right angles (90 degrees). The way cross eye jamming works is that the two wingtip emitters are set up so that the signal from each will arrive at the ‘threat’ at the same time but nearly 180 degrees out of phase. This creates the signal distortion. The actual return from the aircraft is still there (this is not active cancellation), but since J/S is high, the true signal is lost/masked in the distortion. The missile seeker attempts to follow a path normal to that wavefront distortion.

This is where the dashed line comes from. Without the wavefront distortion, the missile would try to lead the target – shown by angle theta being along its direction of motion. (The lower box, or right angle, shows the aircraft’s actual heading vector – which is slightly drawing to the right, or downward in the picture.) The wavefront distortion compels the missile to seek along angle delta theta where the missile keeps heading orthogonal to the dashed line, and whose right angle is given with the upper box. So, at the still time that you showed, the missile is off target.

But delta theta is L times cosine phi divided by range. As time passes, range decreases (because of the velocity vectors of both objects). Also, since the missile is improperly tracking the target, the cosine of angle phi will change too. I’ve tried to find a version with a direct time dependence – there definitely is one or more, even if they are in separate but related equations. I might try again later as I haven’t had much luck. But ActionJackson is right.

And the reason why this method doesn’t work without the correct J/S is because the true signal return is always still there. If the distortion isn’t enough to corrupt it then…

Thank you. This is the kind of reply i would like to see.

I also faced with same problem. I have browsed Du Pleiss’s papers and several books regarding this jamming methods, which unfortunately not including time or movement dependent. Thus i lead to believe that The missile will miss, not only by the distorted wavefront but also that the missile may not be able to re-acquire the target. Thus break lock. Should the airplane also maneuver it will improve the chance of the missile being missed.

The one i desire is some form of correction on how to actually take it into account. The approach i am proposing would be making a long table with range intervals and maybe time. Then to calculate the angle separately.

[USER=”43812″]moon_light[/USER]

7% should be norm as you see in the table, the medium PRF Mode duty cycle can be range at 1-25%. The missile seeker is a medium PRF design.