To say that MSA radar cannot be LPI is a myth. You can generate long duration low PRF, and it probably won’t trigger a RWR, and if it does, would probably think its a long range ground based search radar. Using modern day SAW devices, echoes will then be converted and amplfied via pulse compression into something readable. Another is to use frequency modulated CWI, to make sure you don’t have those sharp power peaks that trigger RWRs. Some modern TWTs are capable of frequency agility, so it does not necessarily mean only T/R MMICs are capable of that.
The PESA (RBE2 and other) null Spot problem?;)
PESA used comon 4 bit phaseshifters. It is created therefore 16 different phase angles between 0° and 337.5° in steps with a distance of 22.5°.
The discrete phase shifts in PESA only allow the beam to focus sharply at discrete points in space. In between those convergence points the beam is distorted with strong sidelobes. Whereas in AESA baseband software provides a near-continuous phase shift, which allows the beam to retain shape as it moves. LPI : Low sidelobes! Sidelobes can trigger the RWR!
Why pulse compression?
That is what the RWR see, noise.
That is what the puls compression Radar see.
The problem with PESA and pulse compression is that your phaseshifter are not frequnecy independently. FM pulse compression change the frequency. At a MPESA (1D ESA only azimut) with maybe only 35 phaseshifter can you compensat this, with the use of varactors. With PIN-diods , 1000+ T/R elements and steering in elevation and azimute is this terribly complicated. PIN-Diods are only a simpel switch. The computation time rise with the square of your nose diameter, Why? Each element need a frequency based phase correction computing. That is possible in the theory on ground and maybe in some years with mems phaseshifters in air. 😀
GaN in Germany
http://www.iaf.fhg.de/pdf/jahresbericht-2004/gan.pdf
http://www.iaf.fraunhofer.de/pdf/jahresbericht-2005/mmics.pdf
Maybe true of the Focke Wulf Ta183 but not the Me163 – the use of swept wings was for increased stability, not to mitigate the effects of compressibility (sweeping the wings gives a similar effect to dihedral). In fact the Me163 had extremely poor high-Mach characteristics as do most swept wing, tailless designs. There was a supersonic wind tunnel in Germany during the Second World War, but the advantages of swept wings in high speed flight were discovered entirely accidentally.
This is clearly wrong!
The V-2 exceeded Mach 1 and a A4b 5000km/h
And Lipisch reduced the downwash to zero at the 163 BV18 this is a 163 B with 163 C wing, well documented july 6 1944 1130km/h. And Messerschmitts “Wing A” used at F-86 and F-100. You should not suppressed the Me 262 HG1, HG2 and HG3. Since 1944 whose the Area Rule common, discoverd be Heinrich Hertel and Otto Frenzl. Several other researchers came close to developing a similar theory, notably Dietrich Küchemann who designed a tapered fighter that was dubbed the Küchemann Coke Bottle. Whitcombe is only a rediscoverer and only because why Busemann him informed!
Junkers Patent March 1944
The F-22 however will very likely face fourth generation aircraft, these aircraft might have supercruise and super maneouvrability and new radars will detect stealth fighters because that is the cheapest alternative to defeat stealth, in fact is probable that the US wil waste resources if new radars make stealth useless.
Therefor activ canceling and soon metamaterials and this make your radar useless! :rolleyes:
And who delivers the CPUs for russian radars?
USA!
A common misconception is that RAM makes an object invisible to radar. A radar absorbent material can significantly reduce an object’s radar cross section in specific radar frequencies, but it does not result in “invisibility” on any frequency. RAM is only a part of achieving stealth.
Diamond –> F-117
B2 and F-22 continius curvature.
F-22 Planform.
2007
M1-Tor can not full entrench!
Kill probabilities for later versions are quoted as:
* 0.92-0.95 against aircraft
* 0.80-0.96 against helicopters
* 0.60-0.90 against cruise missiles (with an effective range of around 5 km/3 miles)
* 0.70-0.90 against precision munitions (LGBs, glide bombs, etc.)
* 0.90 against UAVs
A B1B can drop 96x or 144× GBU-39 Small Diameter, Bomb GPS guided bombs (96 if using four-packs, 144 if using six-packs)
SA-15 can track 48 and shoot down simultan 2 targets.;)
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html
High angle of attack
„As remarked previously, the only externally visible “fix” to the airframe are a pair of small strakes behind the canard surfaces. This type of “flow augmentation system”, often serving the purpose of directional and lateral stability enhancement at high AOA, is not uncommon on fighters; suffice to mention the Eurofighter and the Mirage 2000.“
Saab Gripen
„In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha. When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded.“
Sign In
