fftIn very sensitive mode Irbis can detect 3sqm target from 350-400km – but the “trifle” here is that such mode has relatively slow scanning, for example NIIP gives it in sector of 100sq deg (i would say that the scanning of 120deg forward sector /and 10deg thin/ would require about a minute).
Regarding the slow scanning in sensitive mode, could it be due to the fact that this mode requires additional signal processing (which will incur delay, as the processor will have to do more processing)
A few more queries
– I remember reading it on wikipedia that Irbis predecessor Bars, while having better immunity to jamming has problem in target identification at longer ranges. How probable is this (aside from the fact that at longer ranges this may happen to all radars)
– Some posters have alluded to the fact that in PESA the phase shifting mechanism is highly lossy, that’s why PESAs need more input energy for achieving comparable results when compared to non ESA designs
– In another forum, one poster had commented that PESAs cannot employ pulse compression, is it correct.
fftF16 vs Mig-21 Bison
Regarding Bison-vs-F16 – While I am not trying to take any sides – does’nt Mig-21 has some inherent disadvantages vis-a-vis F16, which (according to my limited knowledge) are
– A small nose resulting in a small radar antenna (Affecting BVR combat)
– Poor cockpit visibilty and small wings, (Affecting WVR combat)
ffthow does the h-6k compare to tu-22m3
fftAlso bear in mind that Rafale uses RADANT, a particular form of passive phased array that is cheaper to build and lighter than, say, the ferrite phase shifter arrays used in Zaslon or Bars. Indeed, the RADANT technology involves a fixed planar array type antenna at the back end with two arrays of (cheap) pin diode phase shifters forming 2 “lenses” that steer the beam in 2 axes. Quite different from the normal passive phased array design.
The Captor uses fast electric motors to steer its array. By not having two lenses in front of the array, the gain of the antenna overall is higher which translates to greater detection range, and lower sidelobes. Lower sidelobe levels makes a radar harder to jam. The requirements for Captor range, and sidelobe levels, were such that it would have been hard, if not impossible, to achieve with passive phased array technology. Even today, Phazotron’s passive phased array antennnas have a lower gain than their mechanicially scanned ones. So, Eurofighter did the sensible thing- stick with mechanically scanned antennas based on the excellent Blue Vixen radar, and research the next generation of active phased arrays which would allow both electronic scanning and also meet range and sidelobe requirements. Much like, oohh, I dunno, the US?
Two questions,
How “fast” are captors dish-rotating motors. It has been suggested that fast scanning improves the probability of detection of difficult targets, one also needs high-gain for this, has captor been able to combine high-gain with fast enough scanning to be a better solution than passive phase array.
While the gain of phase-array antenna may be lower due to high-losses in phase shifters, however the side-lobes on phase-array type of antenna should be lower, since phase-arrays have more degrees-of-freedom in shaping beam. (beamforming)
fftMeanwhile, MiG-31M (Izdelye 05) came to life, with a helluva increased performance. Since no-one asked about those details, i won’t write them here
Please share with us, whatever technical details, you have about the upgraded radar of Mig-31M.
If I am not mistaken, there has been an even more recent upgradation of Zaslon radar (post Mig 31M).
Any other info. that you may have e.g.
– Is the signal-processing back end is Russian or western COTS technology.
– How does Zaslon compare to BARS.
– Is the antenna completely static or hybrid like BARS
Thanks
fftIs the high output power (and the corresponding increase in weight) of BARS is needed for range or for “burning through” jamming.
If one looks at the basic radar equation, for a given antenna size, the range does not increase appreciably with increasing power, probably then it’s high output power is meant for overcoming jamming.
By the way, does any body has the idea if the signal-processing block of BARS is Russian or western.
fftGiven that China can already produce WS-10A, an engine having higher thrust comparable to AL-31, it should’nt be much of a problem to produce an engine in the class of RD-93. It may even have longer life and perhaps may cost a little bit less, making FC-1 more attractive.
fftUhm, can someone explain to me why canards increase an aircrafts RCS?
Surely its still two wings in tandem, only smaller ones in front… what difference does that make to a radar?
A precise explanation can only be given by experts, but an american engineer once commented that the best place for canards (probably during a discussion on the optimum placement of canards) was on one’s enemy’s aircraft. Paul (overscan) , probably can quote the incident with complete details.
fftRCS did not play a role in the Typhoon aerodynamic configuration.
But despite this fact, it has still a fairly low RCS, I wonder what might have been the RCS figures without canards
fftI dont know what reason PAF actually has to be very proud since there is very little if any technical contribution of Pakistani engineers/ designers in this aircraft. May be it is about assembling first ever fighter aircraft in the history of PAF. When others say the same thing, we tend to get angry but the fact of the matter is, really, Pakistan lags far behind when it comes to science and technology. And I am sure of it because I have spent almost 6 years in couple of ‘International Centers for blah blah blah and Centers of Excellences in blah blah blah’ and have witnessed the criminal waste of money and resources in the name of Science. Then after getting convinced about the pathetic quality of those ‘Research Institutions’, I left the country and did PhD abroad and established a formal carreer in US. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, I have seen level and quality of research in Pakistan’s 1st reated research institution (atleast in Biological/Biochemical research), and I dont think it would be much different in Engineering sector. Taking all these things into account, it really becomes very difficult to digest Pakistani Government’s claim about their advancement in Military hardware technology etc.
Now if things are different in various organizations under Ministry of Defence, I dont know as I have never been in these places. My guess is, Government is using this sort of propaganda to pacify the common public. They have to show some progress in order to justify the military expenditures which they do on the expense of education and health.
To a (very) fair degree, what you are saying is true. Pakistan lags far behind in Science and technology, though there seems to be a realization now, that things should change….
It could also be that since Pakistan spends a great deal of money on defence, the defence related research may be a little bit better than “civilian” research (keeping in mind that research in weapons may be quite different to what is done in biological/biochemical area, by the way, I have been told that in chemistry, Pakistan has a relatively good standing, especially the institute of Dr. Ata ur Rehman)
fftI’m afraid you are contradicting yourself there. You say Pakistan did not CHOOSE to buy 054/054A FFGs and ZTZ99 MBTs because they are too expensive, yet in the same breath you are claiming that Pakistan will only buy the most advanced J10 version, which surely isn’t going to come cheap either.
Also, note that the Al-khalid is not just the next price grade down from a Type98/99, its a newly designed tank that, while drawing heavily from the Type98/99 design, is not a version that the PLA fields at all. Its the same case with the SD10 v PL12; PL8 v PL9 etc. One of the main reasons the FC1/JF17 was designed at all was because the PLA top brass didn’t want CAC selling J10s to everyone.
Fact of the matter is that Pakistan has very good relationships with both Beijing and Washington. While this situation is yeilding Pakistan great benefits, it also comes with the cost that neither China or America totally trusts Pakistan not to give the other any senstive technology they might sell to Pakistan, hence why both sides tend to be reluctent to give Pakistan access to their newest toys. Its nothing personal, just politics.
Actually, China never broke any treaties even if it did aid Pakistan with its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. China never signed up to the missile control regime (which is only a volentary, non-binding committment anyways), and any alleged transfer to nuclear tech would have been before China signed up to the NPT. Not very ‘sportmanlike’ behaviour if that was the case, but not illegal either.
As for the rest of that paragraph. Well take it easy mate. Even the US doesn’t trust the UK enough to allow them full access to the F35 tech (big caffufle on this very forum about it not long back), so is it that unreasonable that China would have some limitations on what they are prepared to sell to Pakistan?
The fact that China may have certain reservations in selling Pakistan it’s most sensitive technology is fully understandable. State-to-state relationships are not like personal relationships, they have their own pecularities. China has been a great friend to Pakistan through thick and thin and Pakistani nation is thankful for that.
fftNavigation, command and control, C3I, sensors and seekers, guidance algorithms for all the above…come under IEEE mandate …you’ll find papers from all across the world, bar Pakistan when it comes to high end design. Our Pak friends tell us “secrecy”- the other answer, there is little to publish. 😎
IEEE journals publish papers that are considered to be an original contribution to the existing knowledge base. A very sophisticated weapon may not warrant a paper even in a mediocre publication, simply because it’s a culmination/integartion of existing knowledge base.
While there is definitely a correlation between a country’s industrial base and the number of technical publications that are coming out of that country, it may not be applicable in the case of a “specific high-priority” project.
fftBy no-where; I mean phrase to justify de-centralised use of resources doesnt leads to 700 km LRCM within such short time span with 1 test.
Can you provide me website of those institutions?
This is just un-justificable; one country made turbojet engine and no abc in media came out, no IEEE articles came out; for gods sake “scientific world” doesnt works that way!! believe me or not is upto you; I have put forward the questions in my first post.
Nick Babur doesnt uses any seeker but point to point guidance, now what if a UAV cannot penetrate 700 kms into Indian airspace; how is it going to acquire targets? So this is purely against hard value targets and not “soft” moving or unknown targets i guess.
sealord, boss I wouldnt call some country 3rd world; 3rd world is a relative phenomenon; you can have heaven in pakistan and you can live in slum in uk so you see :dev2:
IEEE stands for Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, the body’s main concern is not turbofan engines, but rather technologies that would fall within the general realm of E&E engineering.
fftHow much work would be needed to convert the air-intakes of Su-34 to S-type shape (or some other shape that hides the fan).
There are only three things that really matter in aerial combat: pilot’s skills, tactics and numbers. Everything else is rubbish.
Pilots skills and tactics do matter, but technology also, after all one role of technology is to over come human limitations, a mediocre pilot in F-22 will have a big advantage over a competent pilot in older-generation a/c.
fftthey will continue to build Su-34 at rate of 8 to 10 per year untill 2015.
here is about TU-334. and there is another 100 orders for Sukhoi RRJ. and other Tupoleve and Ilyushin is addition to. they have now more orders than China assemble for foreign aircraft. Russian President travels in his on airplane and but not Chinese.even they make specials.
but it does not make them richer than Russian farmer. Russia grain production is 85 million tonnes. which is roughly 1/4 of china but with 1/10 population.
most of natural resources are own by Russian government since u say they make money out of natural resources or u think russian government is Jew.
that is not true. the number of cars sold in China is the same as in russia. so it seems it is more imbalance in ur china.
u dont understand. thats u put useless pictures. whats the difference between skyskrapers of Middleast/Europe/China?. some are build with oil money and some are build with trading money.
Its good that European cities has historical outlook.which part of history is that? and do u know entire western China belongs to Muslims and they should be part of Central Asian republics. thats why russia has troops there and support those governments. including the Space tracking station of Okno in tajikistan. u dont have anything there.
do u think every country lives on Exports? they have nothing else to do internally.
and 100 % of World economy depends on Natural resources so?. ur ships with manufacture goods will remain in the port without OIL
how it become fact?. when ur country has clearly signed a deal with Russia that not to tell every thing to the media. It seems u are hiding from the world
we realize reality. it is u that lives in unreal world.
While Russia may be slightly ahead in few areas, the point is that, China is/has (been) advancing somewhat exponentially, while Russia, somewhat linearly. China’s civilian electronics technology is far ahead of Russian, there is a good probability that Chinese AWACS may be better than Russian (assuming both countries are using internally developed/manufactured components).
Sign In
