moon_light[USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER] again with this. Just because a product is in KRET’s catalogue, or because a rep said KRET started producing GaN MMIC doesn’t make it magically appear on the Su-57. GaN products have been offered by Raytheon and NG for a decade, but only recently have defense radars started to be manufactured with said components. There are two factors, one is cost and technological maturity, the other is design freeze for production.
How do we know the N036 uses GaA T;R modules? Because they said it. And another thing, there is zero, zero evidence that either the Kibiny-M or Tarantul use active arrays, let alone GaN modules.
These claims are akin to sorting through DARPA projects or Raytheon R&D projects and claiming theiy’re being fielded. When Russia fields an airborne GaN array it will be news, and there would be no reason to suppress such a milestone as all major players are moving in that direction and some systems are already in the process of being fielded in EW systems. At this point a mass produced fighter sized GaA based AESA antenna would be a notable milestone for Russia.
He doesn’t understand the concept of money or technological maturity, you are wasting your time.
I wish the world run as he believes, then I can buy myself a flying car
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3862538}[/ATTACH]
This is part of disclosed Sukhoi technological roadmap. Most probably the reason behind the extreme short landing capability of the plane. Consider the plane control is automatic[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tSu-57 landing.png Views:t0 Size:t40.1 KB ID:t3862525″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3862525″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”Su-57 landing.png”}[/ATTACH]
That super dangerous, i don’t think any pilot wants to land like that
moon_lightIt seems SAR resolution is range dependent.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3861535}[/ATTACH]
moon_lightYes, the benefit of multiple, real stealth aircraft with very good, high powered jammers, flying in an angled formation with 1- 2km separation behind the lead aircraft (shooters).
I got your pov but to the best of my knowleadge, 60 dB J/S ratio is redundance, 10-20 dB is enough
moon_light@moonlight
Thanks, some note.
I would start by backtracking from the available data before making the calculation of burn through range. If such does not exist however we might use example and “scale it” appropriately. This is an example ARH seeker parameter from Clive Alabaster’s “Pulse Doppler Radar”
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tseeker.png Views:t0 Size:t114.5 KB ID:t3860108″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3860108″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”seeker.png”}[/ATTACH]
The variables of interest would be the antenna gain (24.3 dB, 269.15 in power ratio), emitted power (50 Watts) and reference range (10 Km) and the reference RCS (10 sqm).
The seeker’s sidelobe. would be about -27 dB (35 cm antenna, in 12 GHz it may contain 544 radiators)
We first need to “scale up” the seeker to the diameter of that the 9B1103M before making any power estimate. To do this we may first estimate the gain of the 35 cm antenna which should be about 30.5 dB (699). Then we can begin scaling up through simple square root rules.
New Range= SQRT(Gainscaled/GainRef) * Reference Range.
New Range= SQRT(699/269.15)*10
New Range= 16.1 Km For 10 sqm target.
Now we have the new range we can work with power. How much we may need for the 5 sqm target. According to the above and 4th root rules. 5 sqm target can be detected in 13.5 km, with 50 Watts of power, but we want 40 Km so.
40=(x/50)^(0.25)*13.5
Where x is our “new power value” can easily put into excel and do what if analysis with result of 3854 Watt or 3.8 KW. You might be surprised but, this is peak power. The average would be much smaller 7% duty cycle which basically put the average power in order of 266 Watt.
Now we have power and estimate of sidelobe. Then we can start calculating the burn through range for the case.
Which in standoff case (the jammer/decoy is in missile sidelobe) would be 4 Km. Self protection basically effective (with burn through range of like 1-6 m)
Thanks, it is always a pleasure talking to a knowledgeable person.
As i figured, ALE-70, MALD can near completely blind the missile’s seeker if they are co-location with F-35. On the other hand, i didn’t forecast the average power and gain of missiles to be that good. Although 7% duty cycle is very low?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tradar_a2a_by_stealthflanker-dbf5rk5.png Views:t0 Size:t65.6 KB ID:t3860123″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3860123″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t23.PNG Views:t0 Size:t294.5 KB ID:t3860125″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3860125″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
In stealthflankers spreadsheet, try entering a jammer emitter separation of 1000m or 2000m
and use 60db for J/S to see what I’m getting at.
60 dB for J/S?? that is signal 1000.000 times weaker than the noise
moon_light@moonlight
a) I was referncing the picked up location of the f-15 being shown in a 7 o clock position on an RWR. Lower noise levels can pick up an emitting target better.
B) R-37 cant detect target because of jamming(this is assuming the aircraft was well aware of the missile before the missile was well aware of the target aircraft) i got that part. Goes to HOJ but emitter is turned off. OK i got that but if you turn off your emitter that means you are no longer jamming and if you are no longer jamming the host radar of the missile will have its lock on range back to normal switching from HOJ back to detection correct?
a) yes, but RWR require unique techniques to measure range.
b) On the assumption that R-37 detect target first, it will still lose track once the jamming started, and DAS will detect Mach 6 missiles before a missile seeker can track a VLO target, like you have seen, stealthflanker also agreed on that point. If you turned off all jamming, the radar detection range can be back to normal. But you don’t turn off all jamming. When APG-81 offline, MALD, BRITE CLOUD, ALE-70 can be used.
moon_light“I hope that make sense, or you can see garry’s illustration of that technique.”
I got it from eloise or in other words mig-31bm http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27364 So I guess I was not the only one for suspecting both garrya and mig-31bm very close similiarity as users. But I will still take garrya’s word for it that mig-31bm is not his 2nd user account here.
Neither one of them draw that original photo because that from a study. To the best of my memory, that link first came from Ferrari Enzo or someone similar, can’t recall his name. The illustration i cited came from garry blog is simply an edited version of that photo. He asked to borrow some of my photos for his blog in the past as well, so i’m not surprised, if he borrow that. If it was me, i would do the same, quicker to cite and edit present material.
“Although an aircraft’s radar can only scan out in front of the aircraft, an aircraft can listen for incoming radar signals in any direction, so the scope is 360°. A digital signal processor looks for recognizable radio “chirps” that correspond to known radars, and displays their azimuth on the scope. A chirp is a distinctive waveform that a radio uses. See, if two radios use the same waveform simultaneously, they’ll confuse each other, because each radio won’t know which radar returns are from its own transmitter. To prevent this, different radios tend to use distinct waveforms. This can also be used by the target aircraft to identify the type of radar being used, and therefore possibly, the type of aircraft.
In this display, the RWR has detected an F-15 (15 with a hat on it indicating aircraft) at the 7-o’clock position. The strength of the radar is plotted as distance from the center — the closer to the center, the stronger the detected radar signal, and therefore possibly the closer the transmitting aircraft.”Although the info of the 90 degree turns might be old information but the accuracy could have improved since newer RWRs can listen to lower noise levels.
“cooperate jamming”
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html
stationary passive systems have better accuracy than self reliant RWRs on aircrafts. if more targets want to cooperate jamming a target than this will just give information that there is more than 1 target jamming for passive homing. Although there is possibly one more threat that stealth designs might run into.
we can pretend that they are warheads but warheads with that claimed RCS cannot have a lower RCS than a target that has less surface area exposure like a small air to air missile. If this was the case than the SU-34 is a far superior design in terms of 360 degree coverage than a F-35.
ME: 13th April 2019, 02:01 “3.749kms was the tracking range for a .0001m2 target, 50% probability detection is even further than that. “
YOU: 15th April 2019, 15:49 “If the detection range for 0.001 m2 target is 3.7 km then detection range for 10 m2 target is 37 km”
Why did you take away my zero?
ME: 12th April 2019, 13:53 “https://aviationweek.com/technology/…tection-claims “
NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.” Notice that they are talking about the missile and no war heads. However having a missile fly straight at you the face of that missile would be the 1 diameter reflection along with the fins sticking out. However the sides and underbelly will reflect more.YOU: 13th April 2019, 00:11 “a) a missile isn’t a warhead but a whole SRBM do not have 0.0002 m2 radar reflection”
Why did you add a zero
“And, as we irradiate an enemy in an unprecedentedly wide range of frequencies, we’ll know its position with the highest accuracy and after processing we’ll get an almost photographic image of it – radio vision,” Mikheyev said.
we emit an ultra-high frequency signal, it is reflected back and we receive and process it and get the radar picture of an object. We see what we need to do to make it optimal,” he said.”
Although lower frequencies than X-band are not accurate enough to be used as a tracking solution. The next question for the future is how powerful host radars on missiles are to correct the inaccuracy of lower frequencies to just get the missile on the right path to the target to do the rest. There also has to be a very good reason why the s-500 system’s newer warheads are able to track targets on their own.
a) The quotation you cite and your comment about RWR and noise level is not relevant to our discussion. I don’t understand why you quote that??. Radar chirp, RWR noise sensitivity, passive kinematic ranging are 3 separate topics
b) They take turn on-off. When the jammer operate, R-37 seeker can’t detect target and it has to switch to HOJ mode. But in HOJ mode, missile home on emitter, when that emitter switch off, you have nothing to home on. There are two option: to home on the new pop up emitter or to remain the same flight path. If missile home on new emitter, the alternating jamming operation will deplete its energy, because missile will fly left then right. If the control logic make missile keep the same flight path, then it will miss both target because MALD isn’t stationary.
c) Your photo isn’t an Iskander missile, we have both seen the full size Iskander. No offense to you, but i don’t care if you think big object can’t have smaller RCS than small object or Su-34 coverage is superio to F-35. You can proundly say that if that is what you want. Because from my perspective, you do not have big impact on me or this forum. As in, if you repeat strange or outrageus things, other members will often ignore you. On the other hand, if someone such as stealthflanker or TR1 said that, i will argue with them because they are posters with good reputation and their words will reach. We are more likely to read and trust their writings. This isn’t intended as an attack toward you, but i think you should learn from them.
moon_lightThats why your aircraft has radars and RWRs. If a target is constantly moving like going zig zags he will just give back high RCS returns to update the missile. if the target does not want to give high RCS returns he will just fly a straight path to give the lowest RCS returns to his adversary but this will make you a easier target for the aircraft to update the homing air to air missile of its location through RWR.
Iskander in terms of small surface area still defeats a f-22, su-57 or F-35 which is why .002m2 is a fair RCS. Lets just give you the benefit of a doubt that your -10 decibel small air to air missile is legitimate. Than I can proudly say with full confidence on this board that the SU-35’s mechanical steering and su-34s side and back radars, su-57s side radars all completely sh!t on whatever the US has in terms of offering better 360 degree coverage. I will ignore responding to yjust this part of our conversation later until you offer me an ultamatim.The aircraft can update the missile. There are literally sources for the R-77 that say 80% of its flight is from the information of the aircrafts radars the other 20% of its flight is done by the missiles radar but that is referencing a 3m2 target.
Your are exposing your sides to the adversaries 120 degree beam radar. That offers some good tracking information that can be updated to the missile.
1st stop adding my zeros and stop taking away my zeros since this information is referenced from my sources.
For 10m2 target on AESA calculator the range is 34.560kms.
There is no point discussing if you don’t make an attempt to understand what the other person says, this is not a screaming contest, rerun the same point is trivial.
a) passive kinematic ranging involved the sensor aircraft flying a predetermined zig-zag path, through the rate of change of the direction with target, then the distance to the target can be estimated. To put it simple, the aircraft which need to fly a zig-zag path is the one who want to passively locate enemy with his RWR. The accuracy of this kinematic ranging method can be throw off if your enemy do not follow a constant flight path (and by coincidence, fly zig-zag is also one way to achieve that). I hope that make sense, or you can see garry’s illustration of that technique.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tCapture.PNG Views:t0 Size:t63.9 KB ID:t3860054″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3860054″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
another way to deal with HOJ missiles and RWR guidance: cooperate jamming
Aircraft and decoys take turn jamming on and off, missiles change target repeatedly and deplete its energy
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tf-35.PNG Views:t0 Size:t63.0 KB ID:t3860055″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3860055″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
b) you can’t go back and forth between DF-15, Iskander, some random warhead as an illustration of RCS, and you can’t compare RCS of objects with size if their shape and material are not similar.
c) I do not add or remove zeros from your reference, i displayed the equation to you and how to use it.
moon_lightThanks. Might need to repost tho as the file seems to be invalid.
Can you see the file now?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3859966}[/ATTACH]
moon_lightAs i previously stated the deception jamming works differently compared to noise.
Then it will fail. The jammer failed to steal the tracking gate. Or worse it will turn into a beacon that will improve the victim radar’s tracking capability instead. I dont know if this make sense for you but the required ERP For the jammer to cover the target is needed only initially to “seduce” the radar which then techniques can be employed. If this fail then the radar will basically have only the target and can work as usual.
I see, J/s ratio is required for the initial lure,but after the lure success J/S is no longer important. What happen if the radar reset? such as going offline and online at random?
Thanks, but without transmit power estimate you cannot compute the burn through range.
R-37 seeker can lock target with RCS of 5 m2 from 40 km, so lock on range for target with RCS of 0.001 m2 is 4.7 km
I combined the chart made by you and garry and try some values:
R-37 seeker gain: 10 dB, sidelobe gain: -20 dB, power: 100 Watt
Decoy gain: 3 dB, decoy transmit power: 10 Watt
For stand off jamming, i calculate under the assumption that F-35 release expandable decoy once R-37 is 4.7 km away then continues to fly forward, noise jamming is burn through at 300 meters
For self protection jamming, i calculate under the assumption that MALD-J flying along next to F-35 or ALE-70 dragged behind, and in both case use noise screen to protect it, noise jamming is burn through at 0.6 meter
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tjamming.PNG Views:t0 Size:t292.3 KB ID:t3859964″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859964″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
moon_lightThe missile will hit. because your jammer can’t seduce the missile to track it and receive the technique. Otherwise if it can somewhat seduce the missile. It will still hit as your jammer cannot produce sufficient angular error.
If J/S didnt reach that 20 dB (without gate stealing) or 3-6 with Gate stealing. The error generated (if any) will be very small. The error is measured from the center of the target.
The jammer has following specifications, based on DuPleiss’s Cross Eye jamming analysis :
Amplitue differences between source and target : 0.9 (Ideal is close to 1)
Separation between jammer : Wingspan constrained thus for Su-35 sized aircraft it will be 14m
Radar look angle to target : 1 Degree basically at frontal aspect.
The result with -5 J/S
About 1.1 meter to the left of fuselage of your aircraft. The missile will blow the left nacelle and maybe the internal weapon bay. Ideally you would want higher J/S to improve error to maybe 4 times of your wingspan so the missile will safely explode or pass your plane without subjecting it to too much debris from warhead explosion.
Simple J/S calculation is unfortunately would not tell you the whole story for deception jamming.
To the best of my understanding, if the missile hit, then jamming failed to do its job. Therefore, in this case, we can say that radar burn-through (insufficient J/S) effectively defeat cross-eye jamming?
What happens to other forms of smart jamming such as RGPO, VGPO if they can’t reach the necessary J/S ratio
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:taesa-radar2.png Views:t0 Size:t10.9 KB ID:t3859945″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859945″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
The burn through can’t say anything as no real parameters of those decoys nor the R-37 seekers ever released.
This is the extent of R-37 seeker that i can find
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t9B-1103M-350_TM-2014_03.JPG Views:t0 Size:t261.0 KB ID:t3859946″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859946″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tpost-81039-0-08715600-1449688554.jpg Views:t0 Size:t206.3 KB ID:t3859947″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859947″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
For decoy, there is one towed decoy simulation i have seen with these data:
On the assumption that their value are correct, we can make an estimation of burn through distance.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:ttowed decoys.PNG Views:t0 Size:t191.7 KB ID:t3859948″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859948″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Expendable decoys such as GEN-X and Brite cloud are smaller than towed decoys
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t442342.PNG Views:t0 Size:t326.0 KB ID:t3859950″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859950″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Size compare between brite cloud and ALE-55
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tsize.PNG Views:t0 Size:t717.7 KB ID:t3859951″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859951″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
moon_lightNo. Self protection jamming such as cross eye, cross pol and stuff like false targets, RGPO, VGPO. Needs specific technique to defeat as they does not brute force but rather replicate your radar signal. If you read my table above, you should be able to realize it. Notice that “High power” in Transmitter related ECCM (means burn through) Only defeat noise jamming.
On the assumption that radar burn-through can’t defeat deceptive jamming:
What happens to the Cross eye ECM if J/S can’t reach 20 dB but instead stuck at -5 dB?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t119.5 KB ID:t3859828″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859828″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Second question: if ALE-70, MALD-J or GEN-X are used in screen noise mode to shield F-35 from air to air missiles, wouldn’t you agreed with me: “the range which DAS can detect R-37, K-77M will exceed the range which R-37/ K-77M seeker can burn through the noise screen by several orders of magnitude?”
moon_lightsimple flares which fooled the latest AIM-9X over Syria to dismay of the military community
It was confirmed that no flares was launched by Su-22
Last year at a Tailhook panel, he told fellow Navy and Marine Corps aviators that he realized they would need to execute a head butt.He flew close overhead to the Syrian jet and fired out flares. At any point in time, if this aircraft would head south and work its way out of the situation, it d be fine with us,Tremel said. We could go back to executing (close-air support).
That didnt happen. He ended up rolling in, dropping ordnance, two bombs on those defended forces, Tremel said. Tremel went for the Sidewinder missile. It was really crazy, swinging that master arm for the first time in combat with an air-to-air missile selected,he recalled. But it didnt work.
Real time, I thought I might have been too close,Tremel said. I thought maybe I hit (the jet) but it didnt fuse in time.So Tremel turned to the AIM-120, an advanced medium-range missile. That got the job done from about half a mile,he said. It sliced into the Fitters rump and pitched the jet right, then down.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-…-a-syrian-jet/
So while anything is possible, there is no evidence that supports this theory that old Russian “dirty flares” defeat the AIM-9X’s highly sensitive imaging infrared seeker and programming logic.
moon_lightFirst and foremost. are you two above there talks about Self protection jamming or Noise jamming ?
The concept of “burn through range” is unfortunately only applicable to noise jamming. Self protection jamming however works in a very different manner and defeated in different way too.
That unfortunately precludes any simplification regarding to potential of self protection jamming. Self protection works by actually replicates the incoming pulse and do some magic trick like RGPO or VGPO., or maybe cross eye in case of Tarantul. W
With all due respect, to the best of my knowledge, all jamming techniques need a minimum level of J/S therefor they can all be defeat with burn-through
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=j7hdXhgwws4C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=jamming+and+RCS&source=bl&ots=NKhoq5yHkh&sig=jFNIbx28PCJjFQ5Ovz5lZCczaNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpwIf1j9LbAhWEppQKHZIfDmoQ6AEIZTAG#v=onepage&q&f=false
moon_lightFire and forget do not allow missile to ignore jamming.” The missile has passive guidance to follow the jamming source and it can stay fixed on that jamming source. RF waves come from different directions depending which target is emitting it.
“a) that photo isn’t DF-15, it is the re-entry warhead of a missile or internal of a bomb. SRBM don’t have the same shaping and materiala as stealth fighter, their radar cross section can’t be compared using size.”
You got yourself tide up pretty good on a spider web right now.[/LEFT]
https://russiandefpolicy.blog/tag/srbm/ That is an iskander-m missile are you sure you know the difference between a warhead and a missile? That picture with defense minister Shogyu I am able to see a fin sticking out of the missile. Although it is not the DF-15 that is an example of the size of a SRBM.b) it is a short range air to air missile.”
You have quoted that the .002m2 is the warhead and not the whole DF-15 missile correct(don’t get editing on me right now) ”
but I can assure you they are referring to the re entry warhead because that when the warhead is tracked.” “I can bet my leg that your number for SRBM is for the reentry warhead instead of the whole missile so to count the length of the total SRBM length is misleading,”
OK so what is bigger in size is it that warhead or the short range air to air missile you have presented to me(see what I mean that you are binding yourself in a spider web)? Example of a short range air to air missile. http://www.deagel.com/Dons
Diameter: 0.17 meter (6.69 inch)
Length: 2.92 meter (115 inch)
Wingspan: 0.51 meter (20.1 inch) If you are looking at the front of the so called warhead you have claimed there is absolutely no way that the size would be .002m2 as you have said before. And no way that warhead would be many times smaller in RCS than a short range air to air missile from the front. You can go throw a lifeline to actionjackson, jo asakura, trident, snufflebug or anyone here that appears to be a subject matter expert on reflections based on stealth appearance(I do not think they would want to be involved in our petty argument). But no way a small air to air missile from the front offers 10-100 times more size in RCS than a huge surface of a SRBM warhead and no way that the entire front appearance of a non-stealth F-16 is more stealthy than a small air to air missile.
Missile stay fixed to a jamming source until that source is offline, then missile will have to rely on active seeker or home on the newwpop up source. For air to ground missile you can home on last location of the emitter but you can’t use that for air to air missile because target are constantly moving
Please don’t tell me you don’t know what an Iskander-M look like
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tE94333B4-078F-4529-A563-E8C7AC29B27C.jpeg Views:t0 Size:t156.9 KB ID:t3859758″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859758″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
There is no way you can argue against measurement data with your eye ball analysis
[QUOTE=panzerfeist1;n3859616]
Think of the SU-57 just like the K-77M missile. Himalayas, the L and even the side X-band radars can be used to receive signals. F-35 has to have its radar turned on just like the SU-57. Sure the F-35 can fly zig zags to fu(k up the passive guidance but flying those zig zags in front of a 120 degree radar beam from the front will give high RCS returns to update the missile since you are exposing your sides. The missile itself in dual mode can use its radar and use passive guidance. example of
Special inhibitory sorters omit up to 24 interfering signals, and tracking sorters make it possible to synchronously sort out and track signals from 32 targets” However I can not assume that the missile has the capability to see more than 1 interfering signal but I am sure the SU-57 using Himalayas among the other radars to just receive signals might pick up more than 1 signal and update the missile which one to go after.
you said 3.7kms will shrink to 12 meters. Please show me a source or your calculations how that will be done. I am curious about the jamming power able to suppress it that much that is the F-35 is able to track the K-77M before the K-77M tracks it to come up with a countermeasure.
t
[/QUOTE]
a) K-77M can’t have same accuracy as aircraft RWR or Kolchuga and it can’t use most passive ranging methods. There is no need for F-35 to fly zig zag, because the specific method linked to that countermeasure can’t be used by K-77. I don’t have enough patience or time to explain to you why and i don’t want to disrupt others as they are clearly not interested. If you want to know, you should send a message to stealthflanker, garry or read his piece: https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandav…e-geolocation/
b)
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t6B331BE6-4DD8-47A2-963E-1CE17A6A5F0E.png Views:t0 Size:t91.2 KB ID:t3859759″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859759″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tF6BE92DA-7EA2-46E0-84A8-A567D75523DB.png Views:t0 Size:t10.6 KB ID:t3859763″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859763″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
Thank to the proportional ratio, you can estimate detection range and burn-through range very easy
If the detection range for 0.001 m2 target is 3.7 km then detection range for 10 m2 target is 37 km
If the burn though range for 0.001 m2 target is 3.7 km then the burn through range for 10 m2 target is 370 km. You know K-77M seeker can’t burn through Mig-31 jamming from 370 km, pick a number and work in reverse.
P/S: no one want to read our discussion and it is not acceptable to ruine Su-57 thread for everyone, i suggest you open a new thread if you want to reply
moon_lighthttps://www.globalsecurity.org/milit…ssia/aa-12.htm
“Operating modes of 9B-1348E are: active mode, fully autonomous (active) in the initial parameters of target designation without radar support for other radars in flight (“let-forget”), using only preliminary target designation, without radar support in flight; the inertial guidance mode with radio correction from the radar stations of the carrier aircraft and active guidance on the final phase of the flight. “
Exactly, that is fire and forget instead of what you said earlier. Fire and forget do not allow missile to ignore jamming.
Sure they are big but not as big in surface reflection than an F-35.
If you are looking directly at the face of the missile and the face of the F-35 which of these has the most surface area exposed from the front(not talking about stealth material absorption). Although I do not know if I have bad eyes or if there is any F-35 fan here browsing the sh!t we post. But I have the feeling that the pointy nose cone of the F-35 alone will be the entire front view size of the nose cone of a SRBM with its 1 meter diameter if we are talking about a face to face view only(f-22 .0001m2 was referenced from the front only). I am not even talking about the cockpit, wing, and air intakes since the SRBM from the front absolutely has none of those features(just the face of the nose and fins but that’s about it) adding additional surface area to be reflected. Also regarding your image is that a medium range air to air missile? I refuse to believe that it has a -10 decibel front view if a non-stealth aircraft like the F-16 has a smaller RCS return on its front view. ==
yes if EO DAS exceeds the tracking range than what the K-77m has.
3.749kms was the tracking range for a .0001m2 target, 50% probability detection is even further than that. Start jamming than that will just make life easier for the missile heading your way unless you detected the missiles presence before the missile detected your presence and launching your decoy. There is something that we both have overlooked and besides EO DAS, RWRs can be used. Most of the K-77Ms guidance trip is done from the SU-57s radar and the missile only receives updates from the SU-57. The missile for the most of its flight would get radar updates from the SU-57 while just using passive guidance for the rest of the flight by not emitting any RF waves to the F-35 than turn its radar on when necessary. The missile can also get passive guidance from the SU-57s RWRs as an additional option. Meaning any added jamming source can be ignored for the missile
Which is why I said we need stealthflanker or garrya for this. The very small decoy can supress the RF waves of the k-77m but how much will it effect its detection probabality and tracking range?
a) that photo isn’t DF-15, it is the re-entry warhead of a missile or internal of a bomb. SRBM don’t have the same shaping and materiala as stealth fighter, their radar cross section can’t be compared using size.
b) it is a short range air to air missile.
c) 3.7 km is detection range of the seeker without ECM. With ECM, your tracking range shrink to a dozen meter. DAS will detect K-77 and R-37 much earlier then them can detect VLO target. If you want to message stealthflanker or garr don’t hesitate, they will tell you the same thing. If missile use passive HoJ, it will hit the decoy, if it uses its own seeker, it will be blind.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_256721.png Views:t0 Size:t275.8 KB ID:t3859575″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859575″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Sign In
