garryAI’m curious if we have kinda official size estimate for the J-31.
From what i see tho, this aircraft might be at weight class of MiG-35 given its RD-93 engine, therefore i speculate that the cooling capacity and the AESA radar that can be supported would be similar to those in MiG-29/35 article. The benefit is of course it can accommodate larger aperture compared to zhuk family. However edge treatment might reduce the available aperture.
Working from there i tried to estimate possible performance of the AESA radar that can be carried. The result was like 1452 elements assuming 90% antenna face are filled. 6 Watts per module with assumed cooling capacity of 6.5 kW/sqm of antenna aperture. The set is able to detect 3 sqm at 156 km and tracking 16 targets simultaneously. Trading the capacity to track targets can increase the range figure, although not by much. I would say quite promising figure for export fighter, especially if the RCS is low.
IIRC, F-35 and J-31 are roughly the same size with F-31 slightly thicker.
do you think their radar performer will be similar
garryA[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER]
Ok so you disagree with what source has said. That is all you had to say lol
Yes, i don’t agree, but with a reasonable reasoning instead of not agree because the claim didn’t adherent my stand. You will notice that last time when you provide a science study, i agreed eventhough it oppose my opinion, because it is a high quality source.
What makes you suggest the tank is offering limited power to its radars? they are small aperture as well. R-37 can track a 5m2 at 21.5 nautical miles. We are not even talking about the latest K-37M or K-77M autonomous host radar operational tracking range or how the performance has increased despite the advancements of having smaller modules offering better performance. I am 110% sure missiles powering these host radar systems have a more limited power than what a tank can provide right? Even an old host radar system offers a pretty nice long range
It is limited power and size for what it has to do. Seekers of air to air missiles aren’t comparable because their role is much easier: low clutter environment, track one target at a time, long dwell time, narrow beam because they are told where to look, long ambiguous range is acceptable, only operate for a dozen seconds in terminal phase, plausibly better cooling thanks to ambient air. By contrast, Afghanit radar requires: very short ambiguous range, short dwell time and/or wide beam width to cover wide sector of the sky, operate 24/24, very high clutter environment, must track many target at a time, very short reaction window. To see why your reasoning is faulty, think any person can run faster on land than he can in water, eventhough nothing about him change when you put him in water, the important issue is drag of water is many times higher than air, but in your argument you ignore those factors.
garryAThat’s why I brought up the other source that said B-2 which has a LPIR and this LPIR target was claimed to be detected at 250kms away.
(Again that is up to you to agree or disagree with their claims)
you should ask yourself, if that was possible why didn’t they put that in their brochure? how did they obtain B-2 to test? How can VERA be effective versus directinal radar and datalink?. Quantity of sources is not as important as their quality.
Your posts always cause debate because you took the highest number you can find and conclude they are correct if they adherent your stand.
The issue was talking about the size of the T-14s radar and saying its range is impossible based off that size while their are other host radars on smaller things that can detect at a far range.
Given the specific set of requirements for Afghanit that i listed above, it is implausible to get long range from such small aperture and limited power. Smaller radars on smaller things don’t suffer similar constraint like low dwell time, wide beam or short ambiguous range (to imagine, a vehicle with jet engine can excess several times speed of sound in air, but to put it in water and hope it can perform similar is unrealistic because the drag of water is higher)
garryA[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER]
Than you added this part, “It is far off because they are 2 kinds of radar opposite requirements”
because at that point, i thought you refer to the missiles seeker and the radar of afghanit at the same time, then i realize you are talking about the single kind of radar.
Regarding two other points:
VERA detect target though their emission, either radar or datalink, and i illustrated why it won’t be effective against aircraft with stealth in mind.AFAIK, If you looks at the brochure of VERA they didn’t mention B-2
radar for Afghanit and air to air missile have opposite purpose, environment, so you can’t conclude the range for Afghanit based on the range that missiles seeker can reach. Ground environment has higher clutter, and Afghanit need very short blind range because first and foremost it is a hard kill defense system, so the pulse repeation frequency must be high whereas, air to air environment has low clutter, and long ambiguous range is acceptable so low PRF is acceptable ( similar contrast, see PRF for CIWS vs PRF for early warning radar). Moreover, Afghanit must cover a big part of the sky at a time, because it is for self defense so either your dwell time for each beam position is low or your beam is wide. By contrast, seeker of Air to air missile is told where to look and it only need to lock on a single target.
garryA[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER]
I only added the link to my account in F-16.net, why is it a dick move? i disagree with your accusation but to be fair, i might sound similar because we both strongly disagree with your stand
Regarding the two other points.
AESA radar have very weak side lobes and their beams are more directional than datalink
AFAIK, I haven’t seen afghanit specs with 50 km detection range.
garryAOh geez I am 110% your Eloise or mig-31bm at this rate. Don’t tell me you happen to be GarryB a moderator of Russia defense net might as well have me be the moderator of F-16.net if that’s the case
I never said i was GarryB, and iam not eloise or mig either, but i have the same garryA account in F-16.net too, and we did argue both here and there. Did you already forget ?.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44706
100km does not seem to be that far off if host radar systems on missiles can see 3m2 targets at a 50km range
It is far off because they are 2 kinds of radar opposite requirements and you pull 50 km out of your ass.
Yes we are talking about LPI and how stealth aircrafts are to have less noticeable emission but I am sure that the VERA is regarding this specification as well when talking about stealth aircraft.
How? with stealth datalink, the main lobe only point at a specific direction.
garryA[QUOTE=”panzerfeist1“]A certain someone from Quora did the calculations for me of an estimated tracking solution for a host radar system [/QUOTE]
Are you sure that certain someone isn’t yourself with your own quora account like last time with the claim about 100 km radar on T-14 Armata?
Anyway, VERA it isn’t some magical radar like you like to believe, it is a dedicated ESM (or you can call it a modern RWR) system, similar system can be found on aircraft as well ALR-94 or ASQ-239 or ASQ-213
VERA find the location of the target by TDOA with a minimum of 3 receivers receiving the same pulse, i highly doubt that it will be super effective when the stealth aircraft it trying to find has highly directional radar and directional datalink
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3848422}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tCapture.PNG Views:t0 Size:t406.5 KB ID:t3848419″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3848419″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t2.PNG Views:t0 Size:t245.4 KB ID:t3848420″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3848420″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t3.PNG Views:t0 Size:t310.3 KB ID:t3848421″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3848421″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
garryATo make it easier to understand, imagine for example, if your radar looking at an aircraft at the same altitude as you, the free space RCS is a fixed number, if you flipped that aircraft upside down, the free space RCS is the same, but the path propagation RCS should change, this can’t be intergrated in the current model i think, i guess it might be too complex for us to use excel
garryAYes. You can also plot the target RCS fluctuations the same way and yielded with following plot. The “free space” target RCS is 0.1 sqm. As you see it fluctuates from very small value (but not zero) to 1.6 sqm. It could explain why it’s hard to detect and maintain proper contact with low flying target and the reason why Israel use of Delilah Cruise missiles were of high effectiveness.
Alright if that is the case, i think there are 2 issues: 1) The detection range should be displayed with a chart instead of a single number , because if i understand correctly, your model will show the radar detect something, then totally lost it , then detect it again, then lost it again, and so on, we will have something like a “skip area” and “anti low VLO area” 2) If the target’s free space RCS affects the path propargation the way i described above, then clearly the amount of “reflection” which comming toward the ground surface matter which mean the shape of the object matter, because 2 objects can have the same RCS, yet have different distribution of radar scattering sector, to put it simple, one object can reflect 60% radar wave toward the sky and 40% toward the surface, while another with the same RCS can reflect 20% radar wave toward the sky and 80% toward the surface.
garryAIt is because the F4 (path propagation factor) is a function of range-altitude.
As you see The path propagation factor is not linear, which reflect the environment where reflection from radar may travel different path and interact in various manner. As indication you may see the “Target Effective RCS” Which the target RCS is corrected with the calculated path propagation factor. That is what your radar actually see instead of academic “free space” RCS which you inputted. Thus an object with RCS of 12 Sqm at some point can look alike it’s 0.01 sqm thanks to the local path propagation factor.
I think i got your point, so at some point, a target with RCS of 12 m2 can look like it is 0.001m2 thanks to destructive interference from path propagation factor , yet, on the other hand a target with rcs of 1 m2 may not benefit from that, since its reflection is too weak to abuse the scattering/reflecting effect of the surface?
garryANone your pics prove supersonic launch of missiles
Oh really? even the one where F-35 carried AARGM-ER internally and doesn’t affect its top speed at all.
and where have you put the evidence that Flanker can fly at Mach 1.5 while carry multiple Brahmos ? oops you couldn’t because it doesn’t exist
where did you prove that Flanker can fly at Mach 1.5 while carrying multiple Kh-31? oops you didn’t either
Kh-31/Kh-58 not have same role as Kinzal/Brahmos even though Kh31/kh58 are multirole.
Your original claim is:
there is no point of carrying high speed missile if it inhibit fighter from going supersonic
Now that you realized that Flanker can’t carry Brahmos and reach supersonic, you try to go back on your words. It not that easy. You made a dumb argument, you should own it
Mach 3.5 to Mach 5 Brahmos is not same project as hypersonic Brahmos
It is whether you like it or not
Zircon already at Mach 8
Irrelevant, Zircon is a different missile and can’t be carried by fighter. If i was to use your kind of “logic”, i could also argue that Sparrow is already Mach 8-10.
Don’t assume stuff when you lack scientific insights.
That quite ironic coming from the guy who didn’t know 6*6 =36
Even existing stock of brahmos missile can be upgraded to long range version. show me other missile whose range can increase so easily to existing stock?
AARGM-ER
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tAARGM_Er_Range_Extension.png Views:t1 Size:t374.9 KB ID:t3847363″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847363″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Sparrow
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tCapture.PNG Views:t1 Size:t360.3 KB ID:t3847364″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847364″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Did you drop that argument about size , scope and procurement of Brahmos project? or its continuity to infinity.
nope, i didn’t
I just couldn’t be bothered when you started to speak your usual retarded nonsense like it is the biggest project or that Japan is bad at engineering
garryAI don’t know you put irrelevant pics. none of your pics shows the multi-shot capability of high speed missiles nor the launch speed of aircraft nor any manufacturer link for such information.
For once, use your brain like normal people, you could have easily search for the information by the name i gave, the photo is to illustrate their size.
For example:
AARGM-ER is the next version of AGM-88 which can fit inside F-35, in which case it has a negligible impact on drag, and similar to AGM-88, it can also be carried by normal aircraft pylon
an F-35 should be able to carry 6 AARGM-ER: 2 internal + 4 external, while F-16 is limited to 4 (same number as AGM-88)
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t4%20harms.jpg Views:t1 Size:t91.1 KB ID:t3847348″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847348″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:trN0uecJ.png Views:t1 Size:t297.9 KB ID:t3847349″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847349″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
For Rampage,it take likes 2 seconds to Google the production video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb8M6IeSiAE
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t4D38575200000578-0-image-a-5_1528970593016.jpg Views:t1 Size:t30.7 KB ID:t3847350″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847350″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
The photo of ASM-3 speak for itself.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tten-lua-khong-doi-ham-xasm3-co-gi-dac-biet_14614724.jpg Views:t1 Size:t45.9 KB ID:t3847351″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847351″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
Now, where is the photo of Flanker with multiple Brahmos? where is the evidence that it can reach Mach 1.5 with Brahmos?, you said yourself that supersonic missile are useless if the aircraft can’t carry multiple of them and can’t reach Mach 1.5 with them, so now by your logic clearly Brahmos and Kinzhal is useless???
The Brahmos with increase speed of between Mach 3.5 to Mach 5 is not same as hypersonic brahmos.
It is the hypersonic Brahmos, and it is under development, they initially set the Mach 7 goal, but then realized that they can’t reach that and thus they changed the objective to Mach 5
garryA1. Turkey and Russia have friendly relationships already and reach deals on Syria with Iran, excluding US. They don’t need the S-400 for that. If US doesn’t trust Turkey they should not sell any secrets to them, with or without the missiles.
and they already show concern by that time
the S-400 deal is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back
To bring ABM issue in relation with this topic is totally unfortunate IMO. First, no such concern has been voiced by US. Second, the strategic nature of the ABM systems is obviously (is there really any doubt about this?) of critical nature for the national security of Russia, unlike the S-400 for US. On the one hand, the system is not capable for intercepting strategic weapons. On the other, they are not surrounding US ICBM launching sites as it does happen with European and Asian emplacements of US missile shield. Not to talk about the Mk-41 launchers being compatible with nuclear-tipped CMs (or even land-attack versions of SM-3) threatening Russia’s main cities and violating INF.
Anyway, better not to extend further off-topic I think.
The point here is that, Russian always said their ballistic missiles can easily penetrate US missile defense or their missiles can’t be intercepted or their defense can easily intercept anything US throwing at them….etc, yet they still express the strong dislike when US put the air defense in Europe or when US sell air defense to Japan. If i used the same logic as you, i would think that Russian have nothing to fear and if they fear, they are hiding some flaw of their systems. But in reality, in both case, it is mainly a matter of big country wanting to limit the influence of their rival.
For Russia this is like somebody pressing a gun against your head and asking you to believe it is unloaded. Would you take the risk? They neither….
For US in the Turket-F-35 deal, it is also a matter of national security, when they sell one of the most modern pieces of equipment in their inventory to an allies that might/might not sell the classified information to their rival, it is normal that US don’t want to sell the F-35 to Turkey. This is like when one of your friends who now started to do drug, asking for your credit card details, would you give them? probably not.
garryAMaybe I miss your point, but to me a VLO plane without surprise has lost most of its advantages, interceptors can be sent in its direction for identification and even missiles with active seeker can be launched against them
We are talking about a huge fixed radar system that a few miles in length and have a blind area that is between 900-2700 km in front of it.
Higher frequency radars can be cued in its direction with increased power and reduced noise threshold for increased performance
There is a limit for duty cycle, and i don’t think OTH with their massive skip zone will be useful at all for cueing unless your high-frequency radar can detect stealth aircraft from > 900 km and your missiles can attack aircraft from that distance, which is pretty much wishful thinking
garryA[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER]
Thank you, i will check it out, your is the most detail calculator we can find on the public sector
P/s: with all due respect, i think there is something seriously wrong with the multipath model, I tested the calculator with several RCS values and found that
1) The detection range is far shorter vs a target with RCS = 12 m2 than a target with RCS =10m2
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t1 Size:t65.8 KB ID:t3847341″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847341″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t2.PNG Views:t1 Size:t66.5 KB ID:t3847342″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847342″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
And target with RCS = 0.4 m2 is detected at much shorter distance than target with RCS =0.001 m2
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t0.4.PNG Views:t1 Size:t66.7 KB ID:t3847343″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847343″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t1 Size:t66.7 KB ID:t3847344″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847344″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Sign In
