Saw this on SB, does anyone have higher resolution pics? and in the first photo what does it say in the little table on the right?

Defense aerospace is practically the French equivalent of Sputnik.
Blue apple
Yeah totally. Straight through
I. Stop being so insecure every time someone mentions straight and intake in the same sentence.
II. On the ground, PAK-FA body pointing down because the front landing gear is shorter.
oh and this should show that Sputnik is not some Russian govt editorialized operation
Sputnik is government funded and it is one of the most bias among these tabloid new channels, up there with defense-aerospace.
a bird strike that would make the airplane definitely out of service because “stealth coating was damaged” sounds strange to the least
According to the very source that they linked, the F-35 came back to service in the upcoming day.
The IDF Spokesperson’s Office stated: “These allegations are incorrect. In preparation for a routine landing of the F-35, two injuries were found in the fuselage following a collision with the birds. The plane made a normal landing at the base and was sent to the usual maintenance treatment following such injuries. The plane will be used and will return for flight in the coming days. “
J-10 is a Rafale made in China
Fc-1 = Chinese F-16 Block 50/52
LCA is Mirage 2000 made in India
The number of beam positions equation basically states the area of the search sector divided by the cross sectional area of the beamwidth.
To summary, the number of beam positions equivalent to the area of search sector (in degrees) /area of beamwidth (in degrees). Correct?. It’s like filling a rectangle with small squares.
So if the radar can’t scan vertically, wouldn’t it make sense to only consider the horizontal length?. Vertical length is irrelevant because radar can’t scan up and down.
Well have you looked at the equation i posted ? It’s not simply like that. The beamwidth is squared.
I did, but to be honest, I don’t reall understand why it can’t be calculated my way. Can you explain in layman terms?
You don’t divide scan area with beamwidth
But why not? what is the difference?. I still find it weird that you got 250 seconds.
@stealthflanker
Beamwidth for Horizontal is Narrow because of number of elements. Linear array beamwidth is basically 2/N Thus for array of 24 elements it is 2/24=0.08 Radian or 4.7 degrees. Vertical beamwidth would basically be the element’s beamwidth which in this calculator assumed to be a patch with 114 degrees of vertical beamwidth. and no lens optimization. Beam positions need to be scanned is thereby low as the radar only scan in azimuth.
Horizontal beam width of 4.7 degrees, if the search sector is 120 degrees then we have 25-26 beam positions. How did you get 250 seconds total scan time if dwell time is 0.3 seconds? I got approximately 7-8 seconds total scan time.
With vertical beamwidth of 114 degrees, wouldn’t radar range heavily reduced by clutter?
The assumption is Very Long dwell strategy of 0.3 seconds per beam positions making total scan time of 250 seconds
How wide is the beamwidth?. That sounds like either the beam very narrow or the search sector is very wide.
@stealthflanker
Just want to share bit of attempt in calculating “potential” range of L-band wing leading edge radar.
You made a mistake, there are only 24 elements on 2 leading edge, 12 on each. So your T/R number is double.
@stealthflanker:
I mean there are too variables so i don’t know what to choose to calculate range. For example: I want to estimate air to air range of radars like APG-77 and APG-81. But i have no idea what to put in Doppler filter per band or system loss budget. Even pulse width is hard for me to decide, especially with technology like pulse compression. Basically what said by totoro.
So many variables iam overwhelmed with choices.
Since all the load on the internal suspension, the flight range is affected only by weight changes.
This is wrong, flight range affected by cruising altitude and combat time more than weight change.