http://www.NIIP.ru
Antenna Type BARS: radar antenna lattice hydraulically driven
maximum deviation in the angles
Accompanied by a solitary goal degrees.:

Azimuth +70
on the corner of the place +40
Zone crawling with search and seizure goal
: in dogfights, hail.:
Azimuth +3; +10 +3; +10
on the corner of the place -15…+40; +7,5 -15 … +40; +7.5

Receiver

Channel 3
noise ratio, db 3
The transmitter
kw in power, at least
4-5
1.2
fixtures 1
Programmable Signal Processor
speed of data entry, MHz 28
peak performance in the discharge 75
Processor management of radar
number of processors 3
flash-memory processor, mb 16
Size static memory processor, mb 16
The regime of air-to-air
Range takeover fighter, not less, km:
— to counter courses 120-140
at dogonnyh courses 60
The regime of air-to-surface missiles
км: Detection range, not less, km:
— railway bridge 80-120
— Group tanks 40-50 40-50
— destroyer 120-150 120-150
SAR Maximum resolution, m About 10 m

what was the point of that utterly bizarre post above, machine translating and mauling a webpage which is available to everyone here in english from the website itself? do you now think you discovered the niip website which this forum and many others have been aware of for couple of years now? plus, if you believe that niip is stating the exact performance above, then please- theres another bridge that i must sell you.

plus it is entirely irrelevant to the data about captor.

first you copy paste text and write stuff which is so “out there” that it doesnt make sense. then when asked for sources you come up with more copy pastes and entirely irrelevant claims.

weird, really weird.

1*Your Radar wave travel only with light speed and the target reradiat not instantly your radarbeam. Your Radarbeam could move faster in x and y direction!
2*As faster your beam travel as more time sidelobes and shift sidelobes produce your PESA. That trigger RWRs. 😉
3*A Radar can not simultaneously transmit and receiving!
4. Then is a ferrit lens a analog part and not digtal controlled!

What is your Problem, theortical is 49db possible with a 70cm flat antenna. Therefor is the 36 db for a 1mtr Bars very very extrem low. 😉
No wonder! The lenses produce each betwenn 2 and 3 db loss and you need one plane for x and one plane for the y direction. Than reflect the lens surface some energy back (~50%) to the transmitter. Than has the block converter 3db loss, that is pretty high. With a Perot front feed antenna has you only a antenna gain of 34db at a diameter of 1mtr. No wonder, the energy must twice through phasesifters for transmitting and receiving direction, that doubled the loss in the phaseshifters.

am i supposed to take this gibberish seriously?
frankly, half knowledge is a dangerous thing, and your above post is a perfect example of strung together theories, tall tales and some ego massaging of captor-m being better than everything else out there…all of which i am least interested in.

fyi, bars has no mixture of lenses and phase shifters…and your theoretical values are all paper claims. wheres the evidence, like i asked of the captor actually having your claimed gain? similar made up figures of theoretical maxima can be quoted for any radar from the bars to the apg-73 to the apg-63. what has been achieved is entirely different. so either post actual authoritative figures for the captor-m or quit wasting our time by pretending to be citing these details when you dont have them.

i can as well spend time with serious posters like scorp et al instead of wading through your post above.

well said. just because trash is published doesnt make it authoritative. plus ppl tend to believe whatever supports their belief bias/ pov and thats what allows rumour mills to thrive. if there werent suckers being born every minute, there wouldnt be scamsters. and so on.

So they were out in force flying around just to enjoy the scenery? Sounds like you missed about half of what was written.

i read the whole thing, but you are missing the point – shades of what you said above?!

the point made was simple. that the soviets were not in full readiness as there was no threat of a shooting war, same as the USN wasnt when the soviets overflew the carrier. andy picos “my ding dong was biggest” commentary is interesting but only tangentially so in that case same as the russians bragging about how they got the carrier dead to rights etc.

and since it was not a case of high tension, war about to break it, they wouldnt have been operating on full readiness apart from just doing the usual with the other carrier. flight hours, maint is expensive, even if you are the soviet union.

the soviets flying out in force thereafter is akin to the us carrier scrambling after the russians overflew it.

but the issue is that if both sides were on full alert, could the us have pulled it off? that is yet to be proven despite what pico writes.

Tell ya what. Why don’t you go read this:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

then come back and tell us how easy it is. And that was at the height of the Cold War with the USSR having a HELL of a lot more resources than Russia does now.

“…At the initial objective point the ships have managed to penetrate without the opposition having any clue that the force was within 2,000 miles. Limited air operations have been conducted to this point with no aircraft transmitting radio, radar, or any other detectable phenom. The aircraft launch “ziplip” and fly a mission without any transmission. Aircraft stay below the radar horizon of defense sites which are less than 200nm away. The E2 flies a passive mission in readiness, but silent unless called to go active.

At the objective “mirror image strikes” are flown. These are full strike missions by the airwing flown on a bearing 180 degrees out from the actual objective. Again, no active transmissions. The entire launch, strike, and recovery are flown without a key being touched. In NORPAC 82 these mirror image strikes within range of Petroplavask and the SSBN bastion in the Sea of O are conducted for 4 days without being detected by the opposition. All day, every day, the E2 orbits on a passive profile. All of the ships operate in passive mode simply listening. In a real war our presence would have been deduced on the first strike as the survivors picked themselves out the rubble of their airfields. But for this operation we continued to train in silence.

One should not miss the implications of this feat. A strategic strike capable force operated with complete impunity for 4 days within range of strategic assets without being detected. “

Read the whole article, you might learn something.

well, if we can write off the su strike against us carriers as being due to ops during not full war etc, the same can be done for above. dont think soviets were operating at 400% readiness day in and night out. question is whether above could be done when they were at full alert and vice versa by sovs to us carriers.

The Bars antenna is not only one Antenna.
You can’t radiat L and X Band with the same dipol.
g= Pi^2/Lambda^2 x D^2
g= Gain
Lambda= wave lenght
D= Antenna diameter

this is just generics.

but wheres the evidence about the gain of the captor-m in reality? wheres the manufacturers data as you were claiming to have?

the entire point of the brahmos’s s shaped maneuver is to throw off tracking sensors and attack from a different axis.

instead we have irrelevant arguements going on about the ability of essm to engage a 10 g target, which is all very good but irrelevant. and some asides about the “value of Brahmos’s S- shaped maneuvers” and how pointless they are! sure, so much so that much effort went to include them into the missile, the ppl making the missile had way too much time and money that they spent the same in making sure it worked.

the brahmos is not going to be jinking and turning as it heads towards the target, its going to jink at a time according to what the mission planning system loaded into it, per what esm and sigint picked up about which threat axis would be most likely to succeed vs a likely targets sensor reach. a sneaky mission planner might even have the brahmos get within the outer detection limits and then change the axis of attack.

now its a different point entirely about the reduction in range this waypoint based change will cause depending on how many times its done, whether its a large turn etc, whether even so it will be detected by an e-2 etc or whether a submarine launching it as close as possible will complicate things.

these are all reasonable debates and it can be argued that with the us’s sensor reach a cruise missile can be picked up asap even if it does a sneak turn. but the same may not be true of navies without onboard e-2s but dependent on large onboard radars.

so at least lets keep the proper context in mind, not dismiss the s curve out of hand because it suits one to do so, or play it up as some sort of artificial intelligence or whatever either.