RayRI didnt correctly read what you wrote.(or did you edit that!)
See below.
And wait wasnt it you who started up with the lomac thing?About how great it is, how it is Russian , how they leaked the manual and so on?It was then when I downloaded the manual.:rolleyes: I dont bloody care whether a sim is correct or incorrect.
I am yet to see conclusive proof that it indicates signal strength.My HAL printed documentation says SPO-15 dont have any range detection/indication function.
First you started up with “even phantoms can give range in sixties” etc.range detection is so basic etc.it was you started up with RWRs are sufficient for ARM etc. and now you say I made you waste your posts!!
Though I was being civil with you from the beginning(as you can see with all my posts) ,now unfortunately I am being reminded waht Nick_76 was saying.
Sheesh!!*shakes head*
RayRIts says..Lock On reference Manual.the picture which I uploaded is from page 80.Check it yourself.
In any case my point still stands.RWRs are not basically rangefinders.particularly the RWRs one and more generations behind than the recent ones.And i have given some examples.There are others also.And you were saying “from sixties,sixties” etc.
Anyway I was trying to maintain civilty in discussion.
————————————
okay you mean the Su-27 manual.Mine is a HAL printed technical document on Mig-29.I dont have the Su-27 manual with me now but I will just walk over and check it out when I get time.
RayROkay i downloaded the Lockon manual.It shows this.
http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lockonyr0.jpg
RayRI will recheck later the manual. It was from the Russian developers LOMAC forums that leaked the manual out, and they used that to model the RWR in the simulation. They’re in a better position (Moscow based) to countercheck if there are any errata on the manual.
You sound very funny claiming that its easier to determine bearing than signal strength. Really. As if you think its hard to read the frequency and ampitude of the signal.
You look at it. It does not make sense that you already have the outer ring and green ring to tell you the bearing. It is a function of any RWR to indicate signal intensity (the F-15 RWR in the same simulation definitely does that too).
Check it.I will try to do the same once I get some time off.
I meant variation of signal strength with distance.Not the variation itself..but the ability of the SPO-15 to indicate its relationship with the distance change in a ordinal scale.
RayRNooo. You don’t need two bearing indicators, and the SPO-15 isn’t capable of anything more than the bearing indication in those rough increments shown.
Whats written there isnt correct.Check original manual.Just think SPO-15 wasnt capable of indicating accurate bearing but it indicates signal strength!;)
RayRI disagree. The green lights near the numbers would have told you the bearing. I am talking of the circle between the green lights and the red areas.
I know what you are talking about.As you can see the lights with the degrees indicate only certain degrees but the inner circle gives more specific direction finding.
Go check your manuals and you will know.;)
RayRYou’re wrong.
Do you see the circle of dashed lines around the plane outline? That will show you the intensity of the signals being received. The closer, the stronger the threat signal, the more lights in this circle will light up and this circle will extend and complete itself.
Do you see the B and H and the two red areas left and right of the plane? These areas will light up if the threat radar is near and in a critical distance of the plane. It will light at the left if the threat is left, right if the threat is right, B if from above, and H if from below. If you are being CWI’ed, all will light up.
You see the six lights on the bottom? Each light indicates what radar threat you are facing, like ship radar, ground search radar, SAM threat, airborne AEW and so on.
Oops NO! You are wrong.the inner circle is the threat bearing indicator.NO RELATION to signal strength.
And I know what the rest of it indicates.
RayRThat is not what I was saying. I was saying that some RWRs are capable of rough approximation of distance. Even with an SPO-15 the pilot can do a rough approximation of distance based on the intensity and ampitude of the signal as well as experience. In any case, any RWR gives you better threat information than a radar mode that is short of providing you with range.
In SPO15 there is no way to know the variation of the amplitude/intensity of the illuminating radar with distance because the threat indicator display does not have provision for displaying varying signals.The frequency of illumination can be displayed but that depends on the search period of the radar , not distance.Only when the radar tracks or locks it will indicate but that is again based on the frequency of illumination of the target(Su-27) and not nearing distance.
http://image02.webshots.com/2/2/55/65/45725565kxfVfD_ph.jpg
http://www.chez.com/tolky/Airzone/Aircrafts/Photos/su27-cp1.jpg
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4374/rwrgz9.jpg
RayRThe hunter strafing the **** tank – looks like a cut paste job gone horribly wrong eh? Could rayrubrik put some light into the picture that appears on the newsprint?
Await reply eagerly.
Jai Hind
I only know that much whats written in the report which says “never before released”.I have no idea about it being original/cut paste.Maybe contact the author if you want..
RayRAWACS back on runway
Sunday February 3 2008 06:03 IST
MANOJ K DAS
KOCHI: Nearly a decade after its dreams of flying an indigenous Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) crashed, the vroom of a breakthrough has announced the return of this prestigious programme of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
The Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS), Bangalore, has developed an Indian transmitter/ receiver module that will form the nerve of the system. It’s an array of a number of T/R (transmit/receive) modules that make up the AWACS’ nervous system making it capable of rummaging through all electronic movements in a radius of hundreds of kilometers.
Top CABS sources told this website’s newspaper that India would soon patent its T/R module as “it’s unique in many respects.” It’s a cost effective system and through its development we’re now independent and needn’t rely on imports, sources said. The phased array that India will be using on the AWACS will have the potential to engage multiple targets once it’s fitted on a Brazilian Embraer jet.
With a view to speeding up the programme, the CABS has completed the testing of individual components. This apart, they will soon fly the prototype of a radome minus electronic components to Brazil for test flying it on Embraer jets. “We plan to roll out three usable AWACS within four years. The Brazilian manufacturers will fly the radome prototype for structural corrections. The inputs from the Air Force are also being passed on to them regularly so that the custom made AWACS can be deployed from day one,” sources pointed out.
The AWACS on Embraer will further the strategic prowess of Indian forces and act as the main control room in the air in a battle zone. The next phase of the programme, sources said, will be to develop a more powerful and larger system that can be flown on a bigger platform like an Airbus 319/320 or a Boeing in the 777 series.
Link
RayRMig-25 reincarnate:eek:
Visakhapatnam, January 7: India is slated to conduct trials of the next version of the ballistic missile with a strike range of more than 5000 km and the sophisticated hypersonic plane in 2009.
………………………
….. said Saraswat He said the DRDO will also test its indigenously developed hypersonic plane, which can be used as a reusable missile launcher. The vehicle, one which can launch missiles, land back and be loaded again for more missions, is expected to be capable of at least a hundred re-entries into the atmosphere. The hyperplane, which is likely to be the size of a MiG 25 fighter aircraft, will be able to take off from a conventional airfields.
And related news..posted by someone at another forum:
Both ISRO & DRDO are building truly world class experimental facilities to support these ambitious hypersonics programs. Most notable among them are TWO 1 m diameter hypersonic wind tunnels, capable of testing for Mach 5-12 airflow. As a person with experimental background, the scale of these facilities is mind-boggling for me, I just cannot get over it! Airflow through the wind tunnel is 300 kg/s, the entire complex will occupy 150 m length, and the vaccum chamber in which it will discharge air will be 17 m in diameter!
Only 8 hypersonic wind tunnels of this scale exist worldwide. These include 3 in USA, 3 in Russia, 1 in Japan, and 1 in France. Now India will have 2 such wind tunnels. ISRO’s hypersonic wind tunnel is already under construction in VSSC.
Besides the 2 major hypersonic wind tunnels, DRDO is building a 1 m diameter shock tunnel for Mach 5-12. This is also a MAJOR experimental facility. However, wind tunnels are better (and more expensive) than shock tunnels since they provide much higher run times (20-40 sec vs a few milli-sec).
ISRO-NAL & DRDO are building 2 major blow down wind tunnels for testing scramjet engines with flow rates of 25-30 kg/s.
A plasma tunnel (6 MW) is being built (by ISRO?) to test high temperature materials required for building a hypersonic aircraft.
That is a total of SIX major wind tunnels of various types.
I repeat.. having an experimental background, I am really blown away by the scale of experimental facilities being built by ISRO & DRDO. And this is not a layman’s opinion.
RayRClearly a ambitious program no doubt! (and expensive) Yet, will it be stealthy enough to avoid enemy SSK’s (AIP) and SSN’s???:confused:
Well the ambitious project is very near its completion.Now only the 5000 km A3SL missile with 12 RVs when fitted:diablo: As far as stealth characteristics goes I have no ides.There are other knowledgeable persosn here who could comment maybe..
RayRFlight hours? not relevant. (see crew proficiency)
Crew proficiency? the young pilots completed everything at 100% efficiency according to the report.
Dont you think that crew proficiency and the no. of flight hours they are getting are intertwined at the very basic level??
RayRI’m not talking about SPO-15, which by the way does have a mode if the threat is close to you.
Werent you saying that range finding is as basic to RWRs as tires are to an automobile?That is not the case.Thats what I was pointing.
SPO-3,10,15>general threat direction ,no range function.
ARI 18223 on Jags ,early harriers>same.
Thomson CSF BF RWR>same
I havent heard of that mode.Any links/source?
These pods are essentially rangefinding RWRs in addition to direction finding. ARMs don’t require a high level of precision, you only need to bring them within acquisition range of their seeker, and for a passive seeker you can afford to be generous.
The basic function the RWRs serve is to align the antenna of the direction finding pod in the correct general direction.After that the accurate range finding is the function of the pod.Accurate range/direction finding helps to launch the ARM by ensuring to stay within the specific launch parameters.You cannot just launch an arm in the general direction from where radiation is coming.You have to meet the specific launch parameters for that range.Thats why all ARMs use direction finding pods.Other wise they wouldnt be necessary in the first place.Ofcourse if close enough then the seeker can do the job…but only from close enough range.
RayRAnd perhaps you should know that even OLD sets have it. And I mean OLD like back in the SIXTIES. There is no point of even saying “Most”, because they should ALL have it since it is a **fundamental basic** mode. Kind of like a DVD player having a PLAY feature. You seriously don’t seem to know what RWS, TWS, VS before until I brought them up.
BS. Its not hard to RWRs to determine range. The ones in the Phantom back in the sixties can give rough range. Just comparing waveforms received from differently located RWRs can give you rough range, as if you think it would take a genius to figure that out
If you are talking about RWRs and iirc, SPO-15 RWR cannot determine range of threat just general bearing.
And let me know when you actually talk with the PLAAF to figure out why they don’t have any range finding abilities on their RWRs, despite that they have been showing SEAD capabilities with ARMs, and you would need rangefinding on your RWR for that.
I dont think RWRs give location precise enough to deploy ARMs.For that special emitter locator(direction finding) pods are used.
Sign In
