Well- the Russians have a particular difficulty in that their legacy systems were all programmed using machine code and had a very customised instruction set, which makes porting the code rather difficult. Either you have to develop an complete emulation for the original code, or you have to start almost from scratch.
The US uses a high level language (Ada) which makes porting from one processor to another easier.
Well the Su-27 is FBW in pitch only but its not a bad little flier 😉
Vympel’s pic is an illustration of an “advanced fighter” by the Russian “Stealth” Institute. They did work with Sukhoi on the T-60S and S-37 in reducing RCS, so there is a connection there, but I doubt Sukhoi would be very impressed if they gave away the PAK-FA configuration so it is likely that any resemblance is at the most basic level.
Why did the US make AMRAAM and not just stick a new seeker on Sparrow?
The whole missile was better…
8g…will be a competition to get a fighter plane…
Yeah, because fighter planes spend their whole mission doing 9g turns….
In fact R-27P/EP can only handle up to 5.5g targets due to seeker limitations.
Of course, being passive means it could slam into you without warning….
Well the picture above shows you GDL. The two waveforms are out of phase. The peaks don’t quite match up.
The actual direction of travel of the radar beam is 90 degrees to the dotted line.
“Fire the goddamn missile you heap of junk!”
“I’m sorry Dave, I can’t let you do that…”
Well you must get a range boost over RWS or why would you sacrifice range information by using VS mode?
Judging by other radars it should be 25%-35% greater range.
No- the whole point of velocity search is to get maximum possible detection range, at the expense of range information. I would say 148km is the maximum display range for ranged modes like RWS. If you switch to VS you are trying to find targets that RWS can’t locate- further away. For example the Russian Zhuk-MSF radar was quoted at 180km RWS, 245km VS a few years back.
AWG-9 had a range of 167km in RWS and 213km in VS.
Velocity Search mode doesn’t give you a range, just a direction and a closure rate, so how can it have a range display?
Well, Ferranti have made loads of radars. Think AI-23 (Lightning), Blue Parrot (Buccaneer), Blue Fox (Sea Harrier), the license -built AWG-11 radar fitted to UK Phantoms, not to mention cancelled projects like the TFR for TSR.2, etc.
Blue Falcon was a (private venture I think) demonstration new generation pulse-doppler radar that evolved into Blue Vixen. It isn’t based on APG-66, APG-68, or any US radar. Where this idea came from I really don’t know. It is a very good radar with a range of 139-148 km, using low, medium and high PRFs
In case you haven’t heard of CAPTOR, the EFA radar- that comes from a Ferranti project NGFR, (Next Generation Fighter Radar), that formed the basis of the ECR-90. NGFR used a lot of knowhow from Blue Vixen.
So Ferranti really do know a thing or two about radars.
No it isn’t based on APG-65. When choosing the radar for the EFA, there were two options- the ECR-90 based on the Blue Vixen (Ferranti), and another radar based on the APG-65 (Marconi). The ECR-90 was chosen.
The simple answer to your original question is:
the suffix can mean a number of things, there is no one meaning for any letter.
For individual types, we can probably give the meaning of the suffix, but not always.
And finally- just because several people mention something doesn’t make it true. Often they are both quoting a discredited source.
Only in recent years has the full picture of Russian aircraft development begun to emerge, and the situation is still patchy. The recent aircraft like MiG-29 and Su-27 are better known than the MiG-23 and MiG-25, for example.
Radars: The passive-phase array antenna is a really good achievement however it is teamed with poor cpus and signal processors, denying the phase array antenna to show it’s true glory. I may be wrong, but I read some where that Indians are planning to replace the cpu/processor of Bars radar.
This is a misunderstanding.
The Bars radar stage 1 uses the processors developed for the N011 radar back in 1989.
The reason for this is that the radar source code was all written for this specific instruction set. It isn’t a simple task to port this to a new processor. So, to get the radar into service in a reasonable time, it is using older Russian cpus.
To put this in context, plenty of Western hardware is flying around with similarly out of date computer technology. Just ask Eurofighter about the 68020 processors 😉
Russia and India are jointly working on transitioning the Bars software to more modern processors. Stages II and III will add greater capabilities, but this was all part of the agreed plan, not some “hotfix” for a problem. Better to have a working radar now, and work towards full capability.