moon_lightI am just trying to figure out why there are many users here coming up with as much excuses under the sun as possible.
Then you should join the flat earth society. If many users disagree with you, that must mean they conspired against you.
moon_lightWe got a lot of try hards oh it can be the cooling ohh it must be the software, its its experimental, if there is anything else you want to add just let it all out XD(I was not kidding when I said in denial responses come later did I?). The purpose of jammers are to jam when talking about the ability to suppress you aircrafts location, to acquiring the ability to mask a bunch of aircrafts. I do not think cooling alone or software can do this buddy.
Software can do that, such as changing from deceptive to noise jamming, you can mask a bunch of aircraft, cooling can do that too, because you can increase ON-time
You are solely looking for an excuse to conclude L-265 has GaN while it could be a bazillions others things.
the developments and experimentations were done but were considered successful in 2014. one system was put around the end of 2014, another 2016 than comes 2018 for the last system. It did take some time for these implementations to be done. Got more excuses for me?
You can keep making excuse but there is no correlation between: ( experimental UHF MMIC/2 ECM pod the same size/ 1 new ECM pod ) and (Su-35/Su-34/Su-57 have GaN MMIC)
moon_lightAhh English is not your 1st language. Comparing the L-175M to the L-265 being the same size while offering better capabilities. Tarantul was included on the GaN mmic list I am just wondering if your naïve enough to believe the system was introduced with GaAS?
I understand what you wrote but I can’t understand your logic because there is no correlation between the evidence you present and your conclusion.
There are many ways to improve the capabilities of a jammer, many of which involve software, cooling so L-175M to the L-265 being the same size doesn’t mean L-265 has GaN. ECM pod don’t change their size a lot, ALQ-184 and ALQ-184v11 are the same sizes, ALQ-131 block I and block are the same sizes.
You are too naive to think manufacturing chain and cost are not a problem and new technologies are always implemented immediately
moon_lightOnly one thing true in your statements. Rafale FCS limit plane to 30°. And it is a tactical choice. During tests it was seen at 110°, -20 Kts
Going to high AoA is not the same as having good nose authority at high AoA
moon_light” [LEFT][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica][SIZE=13px]UHF GaN MMIC does not equal recent production jammer having GaN, especially at others bands” Keep in mind the term, “broadband” also applies to Sweden’s and US proposed GaN EW systems which is why UHF is also used in their terms when talking about GaN EW systems
Broadband is wide range of frequency while UHF is Ultra high frequency, why do you think they are the same? and when did US/Sweden used UHF terms to talk about a broadband system?
. KRET announces the EW systems, a year later one of the systems were announced to be on a specific aircraft, later on are used on these aircrafts. Tarantul was 1st announced to have GaN, and was a system that was never known previously before 2014. The Russians have no means to waste production and money on GaAS MMICs or the [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
AL-41F1 if they can have newer GaN MMICs and Izdelie 30 engines. one EW system http://www.deagel.com/Protection-Sys…002981001.aspx “The Russian Air Force Khibiny is an advanced aircraft-mounted electronic warfare (EW) system capable of jamming state-of-the-art radar-based weapon systems. It consists of a small torpedo-shaped wingtip pod that covers the aircraft with radio-electronic protective hood once a missile attack has been detected. The protective hood prevents the missile from reaching the target and makes it deviate from the course. According to KRET corporation the Khibiny increases the aircraft’s survivability by 25-30 times. This pod development is the result of the lessons learned during the conflict with Georgia in 2008 where all the aircraft lost were not fitted with an EW system which is the main cause of them being shot down.” Pretty sure like the N036 this has had GaAS.http://www.deagel.com/Protection-Sys…003418001.aspx “The Russian Air Force Tarantul is an electronic warfare (EW) suite intended to be provided to the Su-34 fighter and developed to conceal an aircraft or a group of strike aircraft from enemy radar. This powerful system is superior in terms of performance compared with the Khibiny which only protects the aircraft equipped with such as system”
Both EW systems of the SU-35(L-175M and L-265M) look like the same size to me. Unless you and FBW think they added more GaAS MMICs being twice as small
So ” Tarantul has GaN because it is new and therefore Su-35 has GaN because its EW look the same size to you?” What is this crap? i can’t understand your logic
moon_lighti didnot say rafale rcs was similar to f-35. And yes, my informations about F-35 and Su57are much less complete. His claims were just that these bumps are very unfavorable to stealthiness and “compare it to X-35”.
You said Rafale is LO and F-35 is VLO except from under, so i understand that as both Rafale and F-35 are LO from under, or in the same class.
moon_lightJust mentioning the new 2014, 2016, and 2018 jammers that have been mounted on those aircrafts after 2014 of the GaN MMIC introduction on that catalog. If you still want to believe they are talking about newer tarantul and newer khibiny-m jammers than the L-265 that is all on you.
Like FBW said, there is no evidence to corroborate the two, the catalog introduced some experimental UHF GaN MMIC does not equal recent production jammer having GaN, especially at others bands. Because there are aspects such as manufacturing chain, cost.
Lockheed Martin was granted quantum radar patent in 2005, but that doesn’t mean we have quantum radar anytime soon
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,375,802.PN.&OS=PN/7,375,802&RS=PN/7,375,802
moon_lightExcept there are no maybes since they directly stated what EW systems are to have them in that catalog. To keep this rather short and simple. You heard of the Tarantula or L-700 EW system correct? Was there ever a previous installed EW system that has went by this name before in 2014? The last time I recall the system being used was back in May 2018. Khlibiny-M, Himalayas and Tarantula were included in the GaN MMIC discussion in that catalog. The L-265 was tested in Syria in 2016 I get it that the L-175 can also go by the name khibiny-M for the SU-35 like the L-265. But there was never a previous EW system that went by the name Tarantul. They have said these systems in 2014 will have GaN MMICs, there was never a previous tarantula system before in 2014, than it was 1st used by some bomber regiment in May 2018. The L-175V offered the SU-34 the capabilities to mask itself, the L-700 offered the capabilities to go mask other aircrafts besides itself.
I wont bother with the in denial responses that come later after this post but at least know this information.
The catalog mentioned solely experimental UHF GaN MMIC, and some EW may be upgraded with GaN MMIC, but there is nothing to indicate that the same MMIC present on SU-57s, SU-35s and SU-34s.
Su-34 mask itseft or others aircraft is up to the jamming techniques.
moon_lightMaybe because i know them? Have you ever seen me give wrong infos about Rafale? Of course i could (anyone can make mistakes), but generally speaking my assertinos about Rafale capabilities are right no? Being invited to Le Bourget or Farnborough have some advantages.
I don’t follow Rafale developement process, so to be honest, i don’t know how accurate your depiction of Rafale is, but i don’t think that translate to the same level of expertise on F-35 or Su-57.
From the perspective of a third party, i can’t help but feeling suspicious of his claims because Dassaults can’t know the characteristics of F-35’s RAM or RAS, and it doesn’t make sense for F-35 to be only as stealthy as Rafale when looked up from below. In my opinion, that is as ridiculous as USA fanboy who say Su-57 equally stealthy as F-18SH. Logically, a stealth aircraft with strike as its main mission must be very stealthy when viewed from below. That is already consider the best case scenario that he isn’t a stolen valor
moon_lightThere is no interview, it is private talks.
Did you meet him in real life or on a forum? How can we know he is the real deal? you know people pretend to be in the know all the time.
moon_lightWell. My “souce” about the “bumps” is the former head of project of RBE2 radar (now retired). I guess he knows what he talks about.Look X35, F-22. Flat surface. (Btw, he says Rafale is NOT VLO just LO) in comparison he also says F-35 is VLO except looked up due to those.
. Yep, on a Dassault software…
Can you link the video of the interview?
moon_lightTo stay serious here. There is also the High and low look down angle.
Something tells me the Su-57 will enjoy a slightly higher mission altitude vs F-35. So how exposed are the top IRIST Bump on the Su-57 from Land based radars, and likewise lower flying planes.
And on the flip coin the underside of F-35 will very much be radiated by ground based radars.But who cares about small trivial details like these, when some bumps are not bumps, they are only special effects(soft angles).
If it aint a straight flat surface, then its far more like a round bump surface.
I don’t want to nitpick but the underside of Su-57 isn’t flat, it got 2 circular nacceles with a tunnel in between with bigger size than F-35 bumps
moon_lightF-35 launch CHAMP (JASSM-ER) from extended range, minimal IR and RF signature of JASSM-ER will hide it from sensors of YAL-1, when close enough, we zap them with EMP beam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsQWWQFQWkA
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tjassm-agm-158-missile-3d-model-low-poly-max-obj-3ds-fbx-mtl.jpg Views:t1 Size:t95.6 KB ID:t3842784″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3842784″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
moon_lightOh you were actually being serious? Although there are more multiple sources that have suggested the T-14 will use a 30mm anti-aircraft for a replacement and many sources stating the Sprinter missile can engage aerial targets as far as 7.4 miles or 11.9kms than go on bashing a news source in which I can bring up multiple new sources but I will feel like I am only wasting my time like I have had with another individual where by showing that certain modules exist along along with another source that modules are present in an aircraft a year later. Although I feel for him no one likes it when a country introduces an idea 1st before another country has plans with it, along with tanks that can engage aerial targets
Your comments always get rejected because your arguments are bad, you cherry pick information, anything fit your agenda you will believe, you don’t care about their credibility.
“or that they think Mach 8.7 shell can be neutralized with 12.7 mm cannon?” You made that up not them
Learn to read.
A 12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.
https://www.rt.com/news/234363-armata-tracked-armored-platform/
They do have anti-tank missilesi n which the sprinter is labeled as such to engage aerial targets acccording to multiple sources anyways. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O9QvzmtLzAU/VWreXGPqYbI/AAAAAAAAUgQ/qKsSkoCWHOg/s1600/Armata_main_battle_tank_Russia_Russian_defence_industry_military_technology_line_drawing_blueprint_details_large_001.jpg missiles look different than the Refleks that are present.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/central/images/a/ac/Armata-tank-t14.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151128205634
Neither images have anything labeled Sprinter and both are drawing. I am asking for real photos of Sprinter. As in physical thing. I agree we should stop the off topic so open new thread and put the photo there if you have one
moon_lightNo **** I was implying that the other APS do not have any radars that can engage helis and drones like the T-14 Ahh man when will you quit humiliating yourself like this? I feel like your doing this on purpose like the J/apg-2 and other incidents you had to let people know more about specific equipment(which is not bad of course). Also please do never accuse other users here of having a bias since you make it look too obvious trying to nerf the tank as much as possible. https://www.rt.com/news/234363-armat…ored-platform/ “The tank’s turret will also carry a 30 mm sub-caliber ranging gun to deal with various targets, including low-flying aerial targets, such as attack planes and helicopters. “
Neither does T-14
You bash APA but then proceed to use RT? Do I have to point out that they did’t even use accurate T-14 model?
or that they think Mach 8.7 shell can be neutralized with 12.7 mm cannon? If you believe that then you have the critical thinking of a 5 year old.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil…ericas-abrams/
“Sprinter is believed to have an air defense capability as the Russians, and many client states that may wish to buy the Armata are afraid of Western attack helicopters such as the AH-64E Apache Guardian.” There are multiple sources stating Sprinter can engage aerial targets.Even T-14s outrange 8km an/apg-78 radars and 8km missiles on apaches. A 4 million dollar tank wasting a 35 million dollar heli.
Before you babbling about engagement range of Sprinter, try to find us a single real photo of that missile. You can’t even find a cgi picture of that thing.
Sign In
