Page 6 – Key Publishing

moon_light

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 913 total)

← 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 59 60 61 →

Author

Posts
February 24, 2019 at 1:55 am in reply to: Could a propeller driven aeroplane still be lethal in aerial combat today ? #2114692

moon_light
Participant

That looks similar to British Aerospace SABA from the eighties:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”3.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3852451}[/ATTACH]

It was meant as COIN aircraft with special attention given to shooting down helicopters. SABA used unducted fan though. Regular turbofan was also considered.

Some Polish Scorpion proposals were also turboprops.

She look beautiful

February 24, 2019 at 1:43 am in reply to: Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard #2114696

moon_light
Participant

Brand new account, moving the goalposts, cherry picking, false equivalence, pretending defensiveissue is a refutable source.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t493.jpg Views:t0 Size:t56.5 KB ID:t3852695″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852695″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”493.jpg”}[/ATTACH]

February 20, 2019 at 6:38 am in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2115613

moon_light
Participant

Then it can be burned through as standoff jamming.

I got it, but what distance do you expect/estimate IRBIS-E/ZASLON to burn through MALD-J jamming, if the target being protected is an F-16?, is the noise jamming enough to get it to visual range?

February 20, 2019 at 6:15 am in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2115629

moon_light
Participant

an important note is that concept of “burn through” range does not apply to self protection jammer as it use different technique to get their job done. Burn through range only applicable to noise jamming situation. The equation may provide answer BUT that does not indicate the radar cant do anything on the presence of self protection jammer.
To quantify the effect of the self protection jamming, one have to know the radar’s ECCM’s capability and availability of certain counter-countermeasure mode. Say ALQ-184 may have repeater mode and “double” RGPO & VGPO modes. If Irbis or Zaslon have say, “VGPO-RGPO Reset” or can quickly re-acquire target after the jammer “cuts down” the acquisition process. Then it can quickly reestablish track on the F-16 and engage.

What if the ECM pod uses noise jamming? i remember that mode is available on ALQ-184 and ALQ-131 pod?
What if there is a MALD-J nearby and it use noise jamming to protect F-16? what is the option to break through the noise jamming?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3851968}[/ATTACH]

February 20, 2019 at 5:43 am in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2115637

moon_light
Participant

Should be correct. although i wonder why it has different arrangement to the one in the possible source material, David Adamy’s EW-101 book. This is the equation look like in the book.

I don’t understand their final formula, what is Rt and R? how did they get rid of RCS, ERP in their final formula?

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t24.0 KB ID:t3851961″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3851961″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Following their result, seft protect jamming is extremely effective?, any aircraft can get the fight to visual range with a jamming pod?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3851962}[/ATTACH]

Do you think F-16 with ALQ-184 is adequate to get the tracking range of Zaslon-AM or IRBIS-E to visual range?

February 20, 2019 at 3:05 am in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2115692

moon_light
Participant

Related…and actually inversely so for jamming, and so the return signal is masked similarly to how it would have been with a lower RCS asset. The difference is that, by raising the noise level up instead of dragging the echo signal down, you eliminate the ‘unaware that anyone is there’ factor. So it is similar…not identical!

You are correct, i should have said the ratio is the same in both case.

February 20, 2019 at 3:03 am in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2115695

moon_light
Participant

[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER]
are these formula incorrect?

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tself protection.PNG Views:t0 Size:t79.8 KB ID:t3851943″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3851943″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tstandoff jamming.PNG Views:t0 Size:t70.6 KB ID:t3851944″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3851944″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

February 19, 2019 at 6:06 am in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2115881

moon_light
Participant

A jammer can’t reduce RCS of fighter, but SNR is proportional to RCS, so having 1/100 RCS is the same as having a jammer 100 times more powerful

February 18, 2019 at 3:11 pm in reply to: Chinese air power thread 18 #2116046

moon_light
Participant

Both are simply different classes of aircraft: The J-10 is larger than a F-16, whereas the JF-17 is a small low-cost fighter.

How are J-10C and the lastest version of F-16 compare?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3851683}[/ATTACH]

February 18, 2019 at 3:05 pm in reply to: Franco-German next generation fighter #2116052

moon_light
Participant

Because you must receive the radar return before switching frequency. ( i have toadmit it is measured in msec.) andswitching frequency is not an instant process.

With all due respect, that is not accurate, for example a compressed pulse consist of many sub pulses at different frequencies = radar can change frequency before it receive the returns.

February 18, 2019 at 8:54 am in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2116129

moon_light
Participant

I recall reading here that LM made a ground launched version of CUDA, under different name, but i can’t seem to find the article anymore, can anyone help?

February 18, 2019 at 8:51 am in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2116133

moon_light
Participant

The best source of units at any Red Flag is here:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/flag_units.html

Thanks you very much

February 18, 2019 at 8:49 am in reply to: Franco-German next generation fighter #2116136

moon_light
Participant

Not just Italy, Sweden is in the Tempest bandwagon also.

That sound like Rafale and Eurofighter all over again

February 18, 2019 at 8:47 am in reply to: Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard #2116138

moon_light
Participant

As I said earlier also, the Rafale too see an increased in fuel fraction regarding its earlier gen sibling, the Mirage.

There is one exception, Gripen C

February 18, 2019 at 8:46 am in reply to: Chinese air power thread 18 #2116142

moon_light
Participant

J-10 is far more superior than JF-17 especially J-10C.

Can you explain? Iam not familiar with chinese equipments
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 913 total)

← 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 59 60 61 →