http://tass.com/defense/1063141

“Electronic warfare specialists from Russia’s Central Military District tested a new method of jamming enemy aircraft while using three different types of ground-based electronic counter-measures systems, the District’s press office reported on Monday.

“During the experiment at the Sverdlovsk and Chebarkul practice ranges, servicemen used the Borisoglebsk [electronic counter-measures] system to conduct radio-electronic reconnaissance. By penetrating the channels of communications systems’ control, they created interference in the operation of ground and airborne radio communications employed by a notional enemy,” the statement says.

Read also

Russia’s cutting-edge weaponry capable of ‘blinding’ enemy’s arm

The teams of the Krasukha [electronic counter-measures] system suppressed the signal of an onboard radar installed on an aircraft and also the radio channels of controlling unmanned aerial vehicles. The activation of the Zhitel hardware made it possible to shut out satellite communications equipment, navigation and cellular communications systems within a radius of 30 km,” the statement reads.

The new method allows electronic warfare specialists to create “vacuum” space shielded from the impacts of drones, airborne radars, radio-controlled high-explosive munitions and cruise missiles, the District’s press office explained.
The drills involved about 500 servicemen, the District’s press office specified for TASS.

“The experiment involved unmanned aerial vehicles, communications systems, dummy munitions and aircraft,” the press office said.”

Scenario

Lets all say there is an assigned mission to take out 3 pantsir systems but these systems are within the area of the 3 mentioned above EW systems. Aircrafts are deprived from targeting these mobile pantsir systems and cruise missiles are deprived from getting information from the aircrafts radars and satellite information to find where these pantsir systems are.

However the problem is this

Some of these systems are not mobile when set up. This means that SEAD can still effectively be conducted as long as aircrafts launch missiles at a far enough range. https://www.oxts.com/what-is-inertial-navigation-guide/

Switch on a GPS receiver and, assuming everything works correctly, after a short time it will generate a position measurement. Ignoring the inaccuracies GPS has, the position measurement the receiver generates is quite specific. It says ‘

you are at this latitude and this longitude

‘—in other words it gives us an absolute position using a known co-ordinate system. Inertial navigation systems don’t work like that. In their case the measurement they generate is relative to their last known position. So even after an inertial navigation system has been turned on for several minutes, it can’t say ‘

you are at this latitude and this longitude

‘, but what it can say is, ‘

you haven’t moved from where you started

‘.

I am assuming that a computer with a laid out map program on a missile shows where the planned targets are, Sensors say how far the missile has travelled from its last known location to the computer, the computer gets updated with the distance travelled from the sensors and determines when it will hit the planned targets.

So the only issue I am assuming with INS is its computer needs the program before the mission starts of where the 3 desired targets are. However these 3 targets are mobile. Data can be transmitted to update the program on the computer of the missile but EW systems deprive that from happening. But the EW systems are not mobile systems like the pantsirs which means they can still be targeted with the before mission program on the computer of the missiles. Which means although the pantsirs are mobile systems but to not be targeted they are to protect these EW systems from INS guided missiles.

The other countermeasure against EW systems and SAM units are EO devices but this can be targetted soon enough by peresvet which I am assuming is going to be like a land based sokol echelon.

• Pantsir systems effectiveness has to be good enough to cover EW systems.

• EW systems have to be good enough to provide an increased survival chance to SAM units from being hit by making aerial targets left in the dark long enough.

• Good enough Military coordination between EW and SAM units is needed for increased effectiveness.

Although there is no way to determine how effective these systems are against a SEAD attack from aircrafts as in poor or high performance. Is this analysis of mine correct, is there things that I have missied?

What stop anti radar missiles and UAV from attacking these EW station?

Simply put, F-35 – or a targeting pod with basic ISR capabilities- has nothing such as a sophisticated and dedicated 1.5T reccepod can give (be it focal, number of sensors etc.). “basi isr” is also known as NT (non traditional) ISR.

A dedicated recon pod will have bigger aperture than F-35’s EOTS and DAS, and possibly in wider spectrum as well. On the otherhand, F-35 can get much closer to the threat bubble than a Rafale or Gripen carrying 1.5 tons pod, so while its optical sensor might not see as far as a dedicated pod, it can get closer to see.
Furthermore, i don’t think F-35 recon mode is limited with optical sensor, it is likely that APG-81 and ASQ-239 are used as well

Worth the wait, i wonder if it is scramjet or a glider
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3861543}[/ATTACH]

…….Bla bla bla …….
get over it, it proved useless and that’s why it wasn’t necessary to trick Gripen and Rafale FCS for this sort of stunts, or why top gunners flying F-22 don’t use them, good for fanboyz at airshow or flaming in forums, not so in combat.

It’s not my trolling you got dragged in, it’s your inability to distinguish between your wet dreams and reality, something you two have in common, I really can’t help you with that.

Sure , engineers at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Sukhoi, Chengdu, Hindustan will be very interested in your expert knowledge to help them understand post stall maneuvers are proved useless, clearly they still can’t distinguish between wet dreams and reality

Then what do you think vortex breakdown means other than “flow which normally very smooth start to get separated

1- In High AoA testing, they are looking at angle from 20 degrees and greater
2- One common characteristic observed, as AoA increased, flow start ti be separated ( there is no indication when at what AoA that happen)
Your logic train is like when you heard the doctor say: “people lose blood when their skin is cut” and “when a person lose too much blood, he die” then you interpret that as “when a person has a small cut on his skin, he die”

Keep on trolling. I am done with you.

Are you finished making a fool of yourself publicly?
Did you figure out the difference between controlled flight and out of control departure yet? What does maneuver means? Because all the funny examples you gave us, F-4/F-14, F-111, F-16, all with pretty much well known unpopular stall characteristics demonstrated either one of the other of those two things:

You still can’t figure out the difference between controlled DEPARTURE and a combat post stall maneuver.
I am not the one who try to blur a spin departure test and PSM
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260769.png Views:t0 Size:t83.6 KB ID:t3854458″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3854458″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

2) You have no clue what you write

Ironic coming from someone who was proven wrong again then again

Personally, I think both, and something else, in the F-35 video, the flight engineers says himself that they start encountering vortex breakdown at 20* AoA, which would explain how a Gripen can reach a yaw rate 30*/sec higher in the same yaw spin with the advantage of having full controllability from the start of the maneuver, since they don’t speed stall it and lose control as the L-M team explained, but stall it dynamically (you got the concept or you’re going to post tons of unrelated pictures you haven’t comprehended yet again?).
Now, vortex breakdown, loss of lift, buffet, aerodynamic bashing are well known and advertised characteristics shared between F-18, F-22 and F-35, with the F-22 perhaps the least affected by it because as I already stated, it is a DELTA wing, but there is a good reason for this to happen, let’s see, LEX plus inlet strakes equals two more sources of vortex.

Getting quite desperate now do you, i love how you try to merge
Taurean comment: “for high angle of attack testing, we actually looking at angle higher than 20 degrees….”
and
Dan Canin comment: ” as angle of attack increased, the flow which normally very smooth start to get separated ..”
then interpret that as “the flight engineers say himself that they start encountering vortex breakdown at 20* AoA”, distinguishing liar

best example, posting about F-18 LEX forgetting Rafale is equipped with them too, but has the advantage of more interaction between other vortex sources to keep the airflow steady at higher AoA

In the world of Thincankiller where all wing shapes are equal, all rudders design are equal and all LERX are equal regardless of their shape and size.

It’s not “claims”, boy, it’s BASICS aerodynamics you never bothered to learn.

Yep, your so called “basic aerodynamic knowledge” when you think fighter sustained G is greater then 9G at Mach 0.8, 15k ft or spin departure equal combat post stall maneuver, i am sure never bothered to learn that kind of baSiC AerOdYnaMic

I can comprehend what is actually written simply because I have learned the basics and much of the more advanced stuff, not to mention had it demonstrated as a student in flying schools, thus I can easily tell who knows what and it becomes clear to me that the most basic stuff already eludes you big time. I do, I can’t help it if you chose to keep yourself in this dark zone of ignorance of those flight mechanics principles, and this is no “claims”, this is aerodynamics and physics.

If you really learned much more advanced aerodynamic stuff than any of us, i am sure you can solve this aerodynamic math problems easy:
Prove to us you aren’t just an armchair expert then.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tlecture 25 David.PNG Views:t0 Size:t21.3 KB ID:t3854318″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3854318″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

110* AoA isn’t exceptional for a modern fighter and completely unnecessary to reach for spin tests since your most efficient angle for those tests will be in theory closer to 90*

whatever your pet fighter has done must be the most efficient, every other way is complete trash. I understand your thought

Now you haven’t managed to shown me “to be wrong and have to change my claims over and over”, since I keep repeating the same thing again and again

Let have a quick recall shall we
1- you claimed no US fighter had been tested anywhere close to 100 degrees AoA=> turn out F-35 had been tested to 110 deg, same for F-22 , even F-14, F-15, F-16 all had been push to 90-100 degrees AoA in their test, this say a lot about your knowledge of spin departure test
2-you claimed that F-35 rivets will all fly out long before the pilot pull 10G=> turn out ,it had been flown to 9.9G
3-you claimed operational G load is directly proportional to ultimate structure limit, sustained or instantaneous aren’t important => turn out, it clearly isn’t , i showed you and example that F-16 with higher ultimate structure limit can have lower sustained G limit than F-15 and also the fact that fighter can’t sustain anywhere near 9G when they fly at 10.000 feet or higher. As a bonus, i showed you that pulling higher G doesn’t neccesary translate to a higher turn rate unless both turn are performed at the same velocity, but you choose to ignore that.
4-you claimed F-16 pilot just let go off the stick and the aircraft will recover => turn out he recover from the spin by rudder input
5-you claimed F-35 KPP specs change is the evident that its structure get weakened => turn out you were hilariously wrong, the Sustain G spec at that altitude is no where even near 9G
6- You claimed Gripen test is a post stall manuever test while F-16 test was a spin departure test=> turn out, they are both spin recovery test, it is even mentioned in the test report how the anti spin logic and the recovery control law of Gripen operate, there is not even a single word in the test report mentioning that the spin departure can be used in combat.
7- You brag about how Gripen spin rate can reach – recover from 60 degrees/seconds spin rate in its spin departure-recovery test => turn out, it is quite usual thing, F-16 spin rate even reach 120 degrees/second in spin departure test.
8-You claimed that F-35 can’t perform any post stall maneuver and it was only tested for spin departure recovery=> turn out, not only i can post multiple video of F-35 perform post stall maneuver in a fully controlled manner, but also the comment of pilots talking about how he used the pedal turn in dogfight exercise and then the test report of Lockheed Martin clearly stated that F-35 can perform post stall maneuver in combat like its brother F-22
9- You claimed Gripen has extremely good high AoA nose control that why its FCS does not limit the aircraft to 26 AoA like F-16 => turn out, the flight control test report also show Gripen recover system will automatically engage after AoA of 26 deg
10-You claimed that Post stall maneuver is useless, and all other airforces limit their fighters AoA to maximum of 30 degrees => turn out you are missing out on F-18E/F, F-35A/B/C, Su-30 MKK, Su-30MKI, Su-35S, Mig-35, F-22, Su-57, FGFA

it still is 30*/sec slower in the yaw axis Post Stall than Gripen and this is rather relevant when it comes to the so-called PSM designed to face a threat, it demonstrates two things, you don’t need TVC and a close-coupled canard can maneuver more efficiently than a conventional design PSM? Gripen 90*/sec yaw rotation rate, F-35 60*/sec. Enuff said.

Again, you try to blur the line between Post stall maneuver and a spin departure test
FYI, F-16, f-18 reached and recover from 100-120*/sec yaw rotation rate in these kinds of test.

So much for “undocumented B.S”, it’s been up since the mid-80s and studied from the 60s.
B. CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD
The advantages of a close-coupled canard have been known since the 1960s.

It was found by Behrbohm [Ref . 1] that the combination of a close-coupled canard and delta wing, of small aspect ratios, has significant advantages over a conventional delta-wing or wing/horizontal-tail configured aircraft.

Both CLmax and the angle of attack for CLmax are increased by the addition of a delta-canard to a delta-wing.

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, Califormna

THESIS……….-
FLO WFIELD STUDY OF A CLOSE-COUPLED CANARD CONFIGURATION by John F. O’Leary

As expected from a disingenuous person, you skip out the vital part of that study
The comparison was against positive stable conventional wing-tail aircraft. Not to mention that F-4 also lack vortex generation device such as LERX or chines.
So, exactly like i said, you cherry pick a small part of information to make your case, while ignoring all relevant parameter that influences the result.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tcanard.PNG Views:t0 Size:t208.0 KB ID:t3854317″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3854317″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

No secret here, it matters little which AoA you are at low speed to achieve this if: a) structural integrity of the airframe allows b) depending on your particular A-C aerodynamics, your yaw axis will be controlled by either one set of control surfaces or another, (adverse, induced etc).
On Close-coupled canards (or ANY canard surfaces equipped A-C), there is no use of the canard surfaces in the roll axis for reasons of structural torsion (it would require a much too heavy front fuselage), on the other hand, as demonstrated on Mirage IIIS/NG/4000 and IAI Kfirs (close-coupled), the airflow on the fuselage, boundary layer at the A-C wing roots and around the vertical surface is enhanced/energized by the presence of vortexes from nose cone strakes/LEX/Delta wing root, canard root and on the Rafale, the design of the fuselage itself.
So you have several sets of vortexes to keep the boundary layer on the airframe in this area, meaning vortexes breakdown occurs at much higher AoA.
That’s a particular characteristic of the design which seems to elude to many people writing about it, at high AoA, the boundary later sticks to this part of the fuselage when that of conventional designs have already vacated, not the case of Close-coupled canards, no need to consult in forum but to read studies about the formula from people who knows, like NASA/DRYDEN/Dassault/SAAB, interpretation if forum is much too often tainted and inaccurate.

and people in the know such as the one work at SAAB don’t claim PSM for Gripen, neither does Dassault themselves ever claimed Rafale capable of performing pedal turn or Kulbit or Herbst, enough said.
The only thing you actually know is close coupled canard keep vortex from break down later than a pure delta, but that it, you have no numerical data to compare the side force that a close coupled canard such as Gripen can generate at high AoA such as 50 degrees to compare to twin tail aircraft such as F-35 or F-22 at the same exact condition. You have no data to evaluate how accurate their control can be or how fast the yaw can be initiated or stop
In other words, your “analyze” base on very small amount of generic information all the while making very big claim and ignore dozens other related factors, it is like someone who say higher sweep wing has less drag, therefore, Mirage III must fly faster than Mig-25.

There is NO “effet boîte à meuh” there, NO aerodynamic limitation if this is what this B.S means to some, quite the opposite, if you mistake acceleration with roll rate, as explained hundred of time by people who served in A-F using them, limitations are there to allow for your average squadron pilot to keep the A-C under control at all speed, since there is no speed limiter for example, and btw, the Mirage 2000 is also limited this way, even more in G than a Rafale
btw, on F-18/F-35. vortexes breakdown in the area is also well documented (fluter/structural issues caused by aerodynamic bashing), so whatever AoA they will reach, they will not be as efficient as that of a close-coupled canard, even with the use of 2 vertical fins.

So you guys can keep the effet boîte à meuh for confetis to throw at weddings because it’s what it’s worse, bar if you want to keep flaming French posters in forums.

Another claim with no data to back up.
FYI, posting that photo of F-35 in the wind tunnel with vortex hitting its tail (like you always do in other forums) doesn’t prove your point, because:
a- You don’t have the same tunnel data for either Gripen or Rafale
b- You don’t have such data at all AoA, there is no chart or overlap curve showing their relative controllability at all AoA, it is nothing more than speculation in your part.
c- F-18/F-35 can perform post stall maneuvers, and had demonstrated such ability, none ever seen from Gripen or Rafale.

You don’t need 30/40/50* AoA to do a pedal turn, all you need is low speed, at whatever AoA your A-C will allow you to pass the maneuver, so if you have the choice between transcient performances (energy/acceleration) and AoA which will take it all away from you, and become more of a limiting factor than an advantage, limiting the A-C AoA makes perfect sense.
Conclusions of PSM tests were the same than those reached by X-31 pilots with on top the comment made by Yves Kerherve; “we don’t need TVC”.

.Their comment was never that post stall maneuver is useless, but rather that it is not worth it to trade of important characteristic, such as acceleration or speed just to get PSM, that mean for example: it is not worth it to have post stall maneuver if in the process you decrease acceleration by 20% due to the added weight from TVC. On the other hand, having post stall maneuver capability while not having to trade other fighter characteristic or the loss is small, it is really worth it, since it can very useful in certain case and for that reason, many new aircraft still designed to have post stall capability such as Su-57, Su-35, F-35, F-18, F-22
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260862.jpg Views:t0 Size:t56.5 KB ID:t3854244″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3854244″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

Actually, bar going over 29/30* AoA, yes they can, because you don’t need to get into a stall to do a pedal turn, you can do it in a stall though

If it is such an easy task, why you still unable to find any video of either Rafale or Gripen perform the pedal turn?

And even more efficiently, as demonstrated by Gripen maximum yaw rate in yaw spin tests, 30*/sec is a huge difference when it comes to 60* to 90*, but there is little advantage in ACM there

High yaw rate in departure test offer no advantage to operational ACM, because in controlled departure, aircraft don’t have the same level of control to get a fire solution like in a combat post stall maneuver. Beside, max yaw rate accumulated after several spins can’t be used in combat either

Take this a step further and this is precisely how you depart an A-C asymmetrically (as demonstrated by the descriptive of the yaw spin test on Gripen), start a yaw spin and stop it, you’ll also need to recover speed, meaning using pitch, and all of this at AoA much lower than that reached by F-18/35.

F-35 departure test was done at 110 deg AoA, i am quite Gripen don’t go much further than that.

close-coupled canards allows for lower AoA for the same amount of vortex lift (appears earlier in the AoA scale), therefore, higher lift/drag coefficient.

Compare to a pure delta, yes.
Other kinds of wing? not necessary, after all, delta is a kind of very high sweep wing.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3854245}[/ATTACH]