Try not to call it a blocker, TR1- it’s more complex (and ingenious) than that. Basically, it has more to do with this:
It becomes a radar “screen”(i.e ‘D9’) when it’s made of CNT modified PMC. I’ll elaborate later this week.
stop desperately quoting it.
“( frequency range 9-10 GHz, phased reshegshhch M / gain 13 LB ; output power 38 dBm )”
…that’s where that account got to :eagerness:
Выходной мощность (output power) is the same term used here for this 2009 GaN development, average power 4.5W (4.2W/mm power density). Your buddy AJ levelled the same absurd claim for Max power, but then somehow acknowledged the 40W peak power in the next pic from the same institute. So *1st class*, 2 morons don’t maketh the absurdity right:
http://www.uni3dlabs.ru/portfolio/istok_animated_presentation/
GaAs MMIC average power 3W, peak power 15W (@ 01:41m), 16.8 x 5.5 x 60 mm
Oh, btw, *1st class* do you have any tangible details on US LTCC radars (outside of an NG brochure), it’s just that I couldn’t find anything. A Russian company has been waiting around for an order for a couple of years now.*
So AJ, are you ready to discuss a W/mm figure for the 6.3W GaN and a duty cycle? -which we can compare to TriQuint’s 2013 offering, or do you still think their GaAs outperforms their GaN?
Finally some time to fire up my computer.
So Jo, where are you at trying to prove Russian HEMT production is on par with the world leaders in the technology? Saw the comment on the application of the last product I mentioned, geez if only your sources had developed their products and documentation enough to actually show such information. Found any solid links on actual production unit specs yet or is it all still vaporware in patent documents?
This one should give you a better benchmark for when you search for an “analogue” in 15 years time.
Triquint TGF2023-20
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225269[/ATTACH]
– For Defense and Aerospace applications
– 100 Watt output
– 0-18GHz Range
– 26W/mm Power Density
– 50% PAE.
– .82 x 4.56mmI’ll go out on a limb here and say there is no Russian supplier that is anywhere near where Triquint and Cree are at today, not even remotely close. This bodes very poorly for the T-50 and its RCS issues.
Was an interesting topic though, especially quantifying how wide that technology gap actually is.
It always amuses me that you never provide links to support your spurious claims. Probably because you’re busy mixing & matching data (when you’re not telling outright lies- for which I’m still waiting for an apology):
http://www.triquint.com/products/p/TGF2023-20
Anyways would you like me to spell out how the Russky 2014 GaN offering “for the T/R modules of AESA radars” outperforms TriQuint’s analogous products (for radars)? (NOT for 4G/LTE base stations, satellite coms, [vague military] etc., though the header ‘Not Not Recommended For New Designs’ made me chuckle!!).
Tu 160, that was frankly embarrassing to read.
Regarding these composite fan blades and blisks, the materials with the best mechanical properties may not be the best at absorbing radar emissions. The blades’ geometry may also not be the best for minimizing RCS.
Regarding the use of a radar blocker, I’m wondering if the complex variable geometry inlet and powerful Izdeliye 30 engines are meant to compensate for losses from the blocker. I heard that apparently the current 117 engines are not optimized for the blockers.
If you note the SWNT absorption (thickness 1.5mm) over the frequency range 8.9-9.4 GHz for engine-duct backscatter:
As for what you call a blocker, is certainly not in the ‘conventional’ sense:
Sign In
