crobatoYes, that might be the small hadware block that was added. The upgrade sounds pretty simple and cheap if you ask me.
The upgrade is designed to be performed with as minimal changes to the original aircraft. The block however, is not really that small, as it can be visually seen from photographs of the canopy.
crobatoWerent you saying that range finding is as basic to RWRs as tires are to an automobile?That is not the case.Thats what I was pointing.
SPO-3,10,15>general threat direction ,no range function.
ARI 18223 on Jags ,early harriers>same.
Thomson CSF BF RWR>sameI havent heard of that mode.Any links/source?
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that some RWRs are capable of rough approximation of distance. Even with an SPO-15 the pilot can do a rough approximation of distance based on the intensity and ampitude of the signal as well as experience. In any case, any RWR gives you better threat information than a radar mode that is short of providing you with range.
The basic function the RWRs serve is to align the antenna of the direction finding pod in the correct general direction.After that the accurate range finding is the function of the pod.Accurate range/direction finding helps to launch the ARM by ensuring to stay within the specific launch parameters.You cannot just launch an arm in the general direction from where radiation is coming.You have to meet the specific launch parameters for that range.Thats why all ARMs use direction finding pods.Other wise they wouldnt be necessary in the first place.Ofcourse if close enough then the seeker can do the job…but only from close enough range.
Yes you can launch with range unknown, its not as effective but you can. http://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html
crobatoI must add those new light AAMs have radar cones, not windows for infrared seekers, which will look like you’re staring down a camera zoom lens.
crobatoIf you are talking about RWRs and iirc, SPO-15 RWR cannot determine range of threat just general bearing.
I’m not talking about SPO-15, which by the way does have a mode if the threat is close to you.
I dont think RWRs give location precise enough to deploy ARMs.For that special emitter locator(direction finding) pods are used.
These pods are essentially rangefinding RWRs in addition to direction finding. ARMs don’t require a high level of precision, you only need to bring them within acquisition range of their seeker, and for a passive seeker you can afford to be generous.
crobatoThat was a relatively simple upgrade widely performed throughout the 90s. Adding a second channel and modifying software for simultaneous tracking was everything that was necessary..
The channel led to a separate subsystem which has its own processor. In effect it is a separate FCS, because the existing FCS and its software is so tightly wound you cannot modify it. Assembly language programming for real time control requires that the code count each tick, and every instruction used executes on a specific number of clock cycles. Once the code is done, its impossible to modify it—whether to degrade it or upgrade it—easily without destroying the entire fragile sequence of timing, without seriously rewriting the code from top to bottom. In other words, you need a modification that will work asynchronously.
In effect, the entire SUV subsystem is like Windows 3.1 on top of DOS, and the processor is the equivalent to a 386/486, while the original FCS and its code, is running on an Intel 8080 equivalent.
crobatoWhat do you want? Stealth from detection, or
But there might be a way, since UFOs often don’t show up on radar 😀
If you can create a space-time warp bubble, you won’t be seen in radar.
crobatoWith the F117 and B2 the US opted to use shape and painting the aircraft with radar absorbant paint to acheive a stealthy aircraft but are there any other ways this can be acheived?
Can an ‘anti’ radar signal be emitted by the jet to cancel the reflected signal from reaching the transmitter? Is there any other techniques that could be used to confuse or alter the signals using electronic warfare equipment?
The “anti” signal is a copy of the emitting one with a phased offset. It does not necessarily cancel it out, but it screws up the result.
You might like to use other systems to cover up the areas where another system can’t cover. RAM for example can’t deal with long frequencies, because there is a direct correlation between the thickness of the coating and the frequencies it can absorb. So you want that to deal with higher frequencies, and use other methods to deal with lower frequencies.
crobatoit has everything to do with it. dont really care anyways, the point was that the chinese orginal flankers are downgraded vs their russian counterparts, prove otherwise.
Yes, prove that Russian Flankers carry R-77s, because Chinese Flankers do. In addition to that, Chinese Flankers have a strengthened landing gear that increases the payload by more than a ton.
hmm let me see, a polite reply to tphuang and off you come frothing at the mouth. hypocrisy indeed.
The real hypocrisy here is you abject dismission of Chinese sources, which have repeatedly come true in the past, while you always cite your own sources, which always comes flat on record.
well i do. i find it incredibly amusing that your defence of the prc is so abusive and violent, in thread after thread, given you are not even from the prc but are just of chinese ethnic origin and trumpet them like blazes. you have zero sources in the prc, i bet you cant even read original sources and rely on folks like t p huang to do the heavy lifting..but you are the expert, and you abuse people and yet you are the offended one! amusing!
Why don’t you check all my posts in the CDF and SDF. I am interested in finding the truth and I object to people making dismissals of evidence and subject matter which they have no knowledge therewith. Like the way you blow your horn.
you can find anything intolerable (who gives a damn btw?) but i continue to find them unreliable when there is zero evidence of their reliability. i never declare my sources or brag about what i know on this forum (loose lips sink ships), so your claims of being better are bizarre. better than what, exactly?
And what is your evidence in finding them unreliable eh?
And defense professionals can lie through their teeth and smile about it. Like a politician, if you can’t lie to protect your interests, you can’t be expected to be a pro. By that very nature, they can’t be reliable on what they say either, not unless they are completely retired from the business and no longer held ot non disclosure agreements. How many times and things Russian defense marketers have said in all these years that never came true? Or rife with self contradiction (e.g. Novator’s flip flopping admission/denial of selling Klubs to China).
no, i was just pointing out that most modern upto date radar sets have it. you are the one who has been trying to downplay it as a manufacturer gimmick and what not.
And perhaps you should know that even OLD sets have it. And I mean OLD like back in the SIXTIES. There is no point of even saying “Most”, because they should ALL have it since it is a **fundamental basic** mode. Kind of like a DVD player having a PLAY feature. You seriously don’t seem to know what RWS, TWS, VS before until I brought them up.
You’re acting like an alleged expert on automobiles claiming that _most_ modern cars have _tires_.
bs indeed. go on, put one source forward of any in service chinese rwr doing range estimation or having datalinking to permit real time triangulation.
The fact that the PLAAF now conducts SEAD and DEAD operations in their exercises requires precise rangefinding RWR. The fact that the PLAAF has indigenous ARMs means having rangefinding RWRs because the seekers used in such missiles have to be this way. Access to these technologies are open, like the Israeli Harpies.
Like I said, RWRs back in the sixties are already capable of rough distance estimation. You think that’s hard to do? By comparing for example, the received waveform to the base waveform stored in the RWR’s database?
otherwise, enough of the generics. y’aint convincing me with this “could be, so must be” . same stuff you pulled on yourfather btw and sferrin in a manner of speaking in the other discussion…..they didnt buy this trainwreck of logic either.
In a way you are coping out, because you really don’t understand these things, why an array on a targeting mode can’t be on a search mode simultaneously.
lol, ever figured out that the pastel set comes with additional control eqpt for the same?
And that has nothing to do with being able to do range approximation.
downloaded off the “inturrnet” no doubt. go on, tell us what all features the chinese flankers have. lay it out, tell us whats the separate mode for the rws called in chinese, the range vs different swerling targets, and what not. shoot, must be easy shucks for you!
Wow you really don’t know what you are talking about.
dont give a damn actually.
all i know is that your flankers original n001s were denied certain basic features by the russians.
Like what? A claim that I seriously doubt. The deliveries of the planes were made so fast from the signing of the contract, it leaves little room to do a serious modification of the radar even on a downgrade.
if you have anything more than any internet manual, feel free to inform us.
If you stop pretending…
this is incredibly lame. any chap can tell about the tws engagement mode, we aint talking about that.
Well you certainly can’t.
should be, must be, could be ..is not equal to…is. do the chinese aircraft have nctr, or not.
You are not in the position to say if Chinese aircraft are capable of NCTR, which by the way I repeat has more to do with the EW measures onboard.
of course you dont care. anything that goes against “rah rah PRC” makes you break out in a cold sweat and off you come seeking a fight like some kid in the playground who’s been told his lollipop aint the bestest ever.
the rest of your spiel is absolute nonsense. there is no proof that there is anything great about a dual engagement mode either, and as i said before, all it is a well known mod to bypass the existing fcs and add a bit of functionality. aint all compared to what the russian flankers have either, which is the basic point.
For a guy who claims to attend conferences, why don’t you explain it then? Adding a dual engagement mode is a big thing because the existing FCS cannot handle the demands of such. You think that any of the current modes on the unmodified N001 are big things? The N001 can only track a single target with a fire quality information, and I am pretty sure anyone with a common sense can see that doubling that capability is a big thing.
Right in the first place you really cannot understand why the N001s have very little changes even in their export versions. The software and the hardware of the radar is so basically tied together in machine language that any modification, whether to upgrade or to downgrade, is virtually impossible without some serious time staking work decoding all the software, understanding it, as the original coders are gone. The whole integration of software and hardware is so tight, you cannot mess with it without spending some real serious time and money—both of which the Russians didn’t have—even to downgrade it. Any change would have BROKEN it. That’s the reason why the RVV module is a complete bypass—you can’t mess with the internals. Only around 2003-2004 did NIIP were able to disassemble the machine code and reexpress them into high language language like C++, to make them portable and adaptable for use with more powerful computers, hence on the Su-30MK2.
The real downgrade on the Chinese Su-27s was they were not permitted to use the Sorbitsya phase array ECM pods, and instead use the Gardenia inside the pods instead. Nonetheless, the Gardenia was something the Russians used internally in their MiG-23s. Later the Russians did sell the Chinese Sorbitsya pods.
india is happy enough to go ahead on program after program, they think different from you.
Wake me up when one program finally succeeds. Its already 2008 now.
crobatoOf course it doesn’t, but the fact still remains that the B-2 was designed to defeat both search AND track radars.
Something to update you a bit.
“The B-2 is good at low frequencies, but not at shooter frequencies.”
—Maj Gen Mark Matthews, director plans and programmes at Air Combat Command (ACC)
crobatoPresenting an analysis of the Chinese SAM Network:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/01/chinese-sam-network.html
Absolutely great piece of work. Now keeping an eye on unscrupulous writers ripping this off without properly footnoting it as reference.
In other news, Hui Tong’s site now has an entry for the PL-21?, for the recently sighted ramjet AAM.
http://cnair.top81.cn/missile.htm
A new long-range AAM (PL-21?) is believed to be under development. Based on some of the PL-12 technology, PL-21 appears similar to British Meteror. It features an active radar seeker and an integrated ramjet/solid rocket motor with a single belly air intake. PL-21 also features 4 small stabilzing fins behind the active radar seeker, a characteristics of Russian R-27/AA-10. Small datalink antennas may be installed in the tail section for mid-course correction. The effective range of PL-21 is expected to be >100km. The missile might be carried by the new J-11B fighter for long-range interception.
crobatoEngagement radars such as those found on the S-300P systems, which featured prominently in designing the B-2, do have search features and are not restricted to relying on off-board sources for target detection.
SOC, just because the same radar set has search and engagement modes does not mean that the waveforms and frequencies for search and engagement are the SAME.
crobatoSince TACIT BLUE was intended to operate on the unfriendly side of the FEBA, which incidentially is where the tactical SAM systems will be located, why would they purposely design an aircraft that is going to be detected by engagement radars? TACIT BLUE wasn’t a standoff aircraft.
As for faceting, it will work at any aspect angle sure, but in the case of faceted combat aircraft the technoque is clearly applied with attention to forward-hemisphere RCS reduction most prominently in mind.
Short history of some of the TACIT BLUE program:
Because engagement radars are not the ones doing the searching anyway. Engagement radar is a precision tool, its not a wide volume brush. Using an engagement radar to search the sky is like painting a room with an artist brush.
Engagement radars are only called to work once a target is found and the search radar needs to cue the engagement radar, but if the search radar does not find a target the engagement radar is not going to be turned on or having something to cue upon.
So this is a logical judgment call.
crobatoWhy don’t you explain to me how radio waves “glide”? Radio waves are not going to “glide” against a curved surface unless the wavelength is such that the form of the wave is long enough to match that of the curved surface. When it comes to short wave lengths forget it. You can also say forget it if the long wave does not match these contours.
These aircraft are designed against known Soviet era long bands.
Faceting works regardless of any aspect. RCS reduction on ships work on a faceting principle (basically one large facet) and its meant on the side.
crobatoThe idea behind the smooth, flowing surfaces, which are the design philosophies behind TACIT BLUE, the B-2, and the YF-23 by the way, is that they are contoured and coated to allow the radar beam to literally “glide” over them and continue on, minimizing the amount of energy that is actually reflected to provide a return in the forward quarter as well as severely reducing the RCS in all aspects. Then, you angle the trailing edges to reduce the effect of travelling waves close to the surface reflecting back towards the emitter source.
That works if the radar beam is front ward of the aircraft, the contours have been precisely been designed and measured; that there is no variances; and lastly on long frequency waves whose waveband you have selected to be designed against. Forget about short waves here. Northrop’s philosophy, which is reflected on the YF-23, is to defeat long wave search radar, while LM’s philosophy is to defeat short wave tracking radars which makes a better case for faceting.
You cannot apply smooth contouring made for aerodynamic reasons on this case. And there is no such thing as incidental advantages.
crobatoNothing is full spectrum stealth. The problem is that when you optimize towards a certain waveband, you de-optimize on others. When you try to optimize for everything, you get the jack of all trades and master of none syndrome. RAM is also frequency specific, and so is composite; the size of the honeycombs determines which frequency waveband is absorbed and let through. The same technology is applied on radomes.
B-2 is optimized for low frequency search radar, but vulnerable to high frequency tracking radars. The F-22 is the opposite.
There is also stealth not by absorbtion but by reflecting it away from the emitter source in a controlled and designed manner. The less multiple directions radar is reflected, the better.
Smooth and rounded contours for stealth is a myth. What you need is flat and straight surfaces. The more rounding and curving you have the more “unstealthy” you are because rounded surfaces will reflect radar in more directions than controlled flat angled surfaces. Balls and cylinders are among the most unstealthy shapes ever. The simpler and straightforward the design is, the better. Less corners, less angles, less curves, less of anything.
Anything that produces a 90 degree corner reflection is unstealthy, which is why square intakes is a no no. Not only square intakes but also square windows, which applies to bombers and even ships.
Reflection against lower frequencies require longer uninterrupted flat surfaces. Its easier to stealth against higher frequencies not lower frequencies because you cannot build a honeycomb matrix that is big enough to absorb the long length, create angled surfaces long enough, or even a fighter big enough. At some point it won’t look like a plane anymore but shaped like a thin piece of square cardboard. Whatever you reflect, the wavelength has to be smaller than the angled surface. If the wavelength > the length of the surface, you lose the controlled reflection.
Sign In
