Russian AESAs - what gives?

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Online

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2401
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post13 Jul 2017, 22:26

wewuzkangz wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:It took USA about 20 years to get from test beds to operational AESA. USA has far superior resources and technological capability to Russia, so that's why it takes quite a long time for Russia to come up with operational AESA. The technology is actually quite complex and requires a lot of work to get right.


Nope its money even their IRBIS has a farther lower RCS detecting range than f-22 or F-35. Most of their money is spent on mobile air defenses and ground radars than airforce.

Eh, no it doesn't. Not even remotely comparable, in capabilities.
Offline

juretrn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09

Unread post14 Jul 2017, 00:17

vewuzkangz, aren't you a piece of work.
IRBIS has 400+ km range, but APG-77 doesn't? Whatever you say.
The aircraft's Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 AESA radar system is able to detect enemy aircraft radar at distances of up to 285 miles (460 km).
http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/F-22-Raptor.html

(probably applies to APG-77v1)
Chew on that one for a while.

Keep in mind true ranges are very hush-hush. But rest assured the -77 is pretty much the most advanced air-to-air fighter radar, and constantly being upgraded.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2941
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post14 Jul 2017, 05:18

Guys, I think there was a language barrier here. He was saying IRBIS is inferior to APG-77 and -81 as Russia spend all their money on SAMs.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Online

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post15 Jul 2017, 04:43

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Guys, I think there was a language barrier here. He was saying IRBIS is inferior to APG-77 and -81 as Russia spend all their money on SAMs.


He's saying the limiting factor is money, not technology, because according to highly reliable sources on RussiaDefence.net, citing highly reliable AirPowerAustralia.net, citing highly reliable Wikipedia.net, the APG-77's capabilities are weak.

One has to wonder how Irbis gets superior low-RCS detection range (actual radar modes not discussed), and at the same time get really terrible SAR ground resolution modes of 3m^2 (according to the same manufacturer's brochure). If technology isn't a barrier, then where is the evidence of technological parity?
Offline

wewuzkangz2

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2017, 03:04

Unread post16 Jul 2017, 03:05

arian wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Guys, I think there was a language barrier here. He was saying IRBIS is inferior to APG-77 and -81 as Russia spend all their money on SAMs.


He's saying the limiting factor is money, not technology, because according to highly reliable sources on RussiaDefence.net, citing highly reliable AirPowerAustralia.net, citing highly reliable Wikipedia.net, the APG-77's capabilities are weak.

One has to wonder how Irbis gets superior low-RCS detection range (actual radar modes not discussed), and at the same time get really terrible SAR ground resolution modes of 3m^2 (according to the same manufacturer's brochure). If technology isn't a barrier, then where is the evidence of technological parity?


Bro do you even check the RCS in given ranges? Here let me give you an example. http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Irbis-BARS.png and download/file.php?id=15156&mode=view..........Now before I drive everyone nuts here about using Australia airforce as a source there is still truth in what they put the radars set. Here is an example http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/Ir ... 00001.aspx and http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/AN ... 81001.aspx. Now lets look back at the pictures that no one in this forum likes. irbis RCS at 200 NMI looks like it can see an RCS of 3 at that range convert that to km its at 370km. WOW deagel says 400km it can see an RCS of 3 at that range....Some other sources say RCS of 3 at 350km but you get the general idea. Now in deagel it says RCS of .01 at 90km looks go look back at that image. so it shows it like touching 50 NMI thats like 92.6km ohhh no way is that a coincidence? Lets see if it isnt F-35 RCS detection of 1 at 150km now lets go look at that other image. lets see the red line in that picture is F-35 hmm so it looks like the RCS of 1 is at 81 to 82 nmi lets convert that so 81 nmi to km it shows 150.012km OHH LAWD baby jesus those darn australia air force images are right again with those different sources(Now everyone in the Forum thinks I am just giving them the middle finger.)........If anyone has looked into deagel it uses articles for ranges, RCS and all that unlike wiki using blogs, forums or whatever.

Now if everyone may excuse me I will start a bigger upheaval at another topic before I am done for today since i get limited responses. :wink:
Offline

wewuzkangz2

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2017, 03:04

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 17:51

juretrn wrote:There's been talk of Russians making fighter-sized AESA radars since 2005-ish, when they first showed off Zhuk-ME, and in the following years about 100 other Zhuk AESA variants. They were making offers to upgrade Indian Su-30s to AESA, but it seems now Israel's ELTA might beat them to it.
Still, nothing resembling an AESA has materialised into Russian service as of now. What's going on here? Development problems? Lack of GaN/GaAs production capability? Simply lack of funding?


The Russians will sell their shitty exports as usual while keeping things like this to themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuk_(radar) FGA-35(3D)[edit]
The FGA-35(3D) was first shown at MAKS in 2013. It's a GaN-based AESA, scalable, meant for various platforms with the version shown at MAKS having a 688mm(?) antenna and 960 T/R's. In an interview the new radar was mentioned to be weighing about 130 kg(for fighter planes)[20] and having a 200 km range for a 5-ton UAV version.[21] FGA-35(3D) was relabeled as FGA-35 while the original FGA-35 was relabeled as FGA-29.......They are now moving to ROFAR radars if 2018 tests are successful than production in 2020...... Its lack of funding.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1202
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 20:46

wewuzkangz2 wrote:Bro do you even check the RCS in given ranges? Here let me give you an example. http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Irbis-BARS.png and download/file.php?id=15156&mode=view..........Now before I drive everyone nuts here about using Australia airforce as a source there is still truth in what they put the radars set. Here is an example http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/Ir ... 00001.aspx and http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/AN ... 81001.aspx. Now lets look back at the pictures that no one in this forum likes. irbis RCS at 200 NMI looks like it can see an RCS of 3 at that range convert that to km its at 370km. WOW deagel says 400km it can see an RCS of 3 at that range....Some other sources say RCS of 3 at 350km but you get the general idea. Now in deagel it says RCS of .01 at 90km looks go look back at that image. so it shows it like touching 50 NMI thats like 92.6km ohhh no way is that a coincidence? Lets see if it isnt F-35 RCS detection of 1 at 150km now lets go look at that other image. lets see the red line in that picture is F-35 hmm so it looks like the RCS of 1 is at 81 to 82 nmi lets convert that so 81 nmi to km it shows 150.012km OHH LAWD baby jesus those darn australia air force images are right again with those different sources(Now everyone in the Forum thinks I am just giving them the middle finger.)........If anyone has looked into deagel it uses articles for ranges, RCS and all that unlike wiki using blogs, forums or whatever.

Now if everyone may excuse me I will start a bigger upheaval at another topic before I am done for today since i get limited responses. :wink:

What makes you think Deagel a reliable source?
You appear to be so surprised that those figures are equal??? , you must thought that APA somehow come up with a super accurate way to estimate radar range from public information like peak power, radar size and frequency and everyone here are dumb?. OK, before you give yourself a pat on the back thinking that you are so smart and gave everyone here a middle finger. New flash, all those radar range charts you saw on APA and blog are delivered from the radar range equation. They got one public detection vs RCS value then delivered the rest through equation. Everyone can do it. You watch about it here:


Or here
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... -benefits/
Or here
viewtopic.php?t=16084
For example, the radar range equation can be used to demonstrate logarithmically that a 40 percent reduction in RCS causes only a 10 percent reduction in the detection range

The number are equal because they are used as the started variable, how could you get the specific value wrong if they are literally initial input?

So what is the problem with using the radar equation you say?
the problem is you do not know the stated Signal-noise ratio that manufacturers used to achieve the initial detection range, higher SNR standard mean smaller, less impressive detection range to put on power point and APA charts but the detect will be much more reliable
Image
2 radar can have the same public detection range but if one used 13 dB SNR standard while the others used 5 dB SNR, that will be a dramatic difference in real war capability.
Last edited by eloise on 21 Jul 2017, 23:46, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1202
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 21:15

wewuzkangz2 wrote:The FGA-35(3D) was first shown at MAKS in 2013. It's a GaN-based AESA, scalable, meant for various platforms with the version shown at MAKS having a 688mm(?) antenna and 960 T/R's

Where did you hear that FGA-35 is GaN based? Another invention of internet fan based?
Image

wewuzkangz2 wrote:They are now moving to ROFAR radars if 2018 tests are successful than production in 2020...... Its lack of funding.

ROFAR? Do you even understand how it works?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1202
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 21:18

arian wrote:
One has to wonder how Irbis gets superior low-RCS detection range (actual radar modes not discussed), and at the same time get really terrible SAR ground resolution modes of 3m^2 (according to the same manufacturer's brochure). If technology isn't a barrier, then where is the evidence of technological parity?

Technically speaking, range can be achieved through brute force while SAR resolution is more related to pulse compression and signal processing
Offline

wewuzkangz2

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2017, 03:04

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 00:52

eloise wrote:
wewuzkangz2 wrote:The FGA-35(3D) was first shown at MAKS in 2013. It's a GaN-based AESA, scalable, meant for various platforms with the version shown at MAKS having a 688mm(?) antenna and 960 T/R's

Where did you hear that FGA-35 is GaN based? Another invention of internet fan based?
Image

wewuzkangz2 wrote:They are now moving to ROFAR radars if 2018 tests are successful than production in 2020...... Its lack of funding.

ROFAR? Do you even understand how it works?


Great whats next your going to say the an/spy-6 is not a GaN radar as well because it works in dual band freq with 3d AESA tech like the fga-35(3d) :bang: ???? Also what gives with the f-22 120 degree azimuth radar range search with the f-35 140 degree azimuth. N036 scans in 240 radar works in multiple bands, Indians in 2012 have plans of a 360 degree radar with 90 degree scan. And SAAB claiming to transfer GAN AESA tech if Indians purchase their Gripens in which cased gripen ES-05s have a 200 degree scan?

ROFAR is a photon based radar in which case according to head official of KRET saying it can spot a human at 400km and identify their face. RCS of human according to global security is 1 face is less than 1/10 the size of the whole human body along with mass and weight. So my estimate seems it can detect an RCS at less than .1 from 400km. And the radar will display the target like its in a tv screen. Yeah go ahead and say that head KRET official is on some strong sh*t but we have yet to see what it can do.

RCS yes its also measured in decibels for noise. Its just multiple articles saying the same thing that relate to AUS APs charts.
Online

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 01:01

wewuzkangz2 wrote:The Russians will sell their shitty exports as usual while keeping things like this to themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuk_(radar) FGA-35(3D)[edit]
The FGA-35(3D) was first shown at MAKS in 2013. It's a GaN-based AESA, scalable, meant for various platforms with the version shown at MAKS having a 688mm(?) antenna and 960 T/R's. In an interview the new radar was mentioned to be weighing about 130 kg(for fighter planes)[20] and having a 200 km range for a 5-ton UAV version.[21] FGA-35(3D) was relabeled as FGA-35 while the original FGA-35 was relabeled as FGA-29.......They are now moving to ROFAR radars if 2018 tests are successful than production in 2020...... Its lack of funding.


Look, guy. This is the wrong forum if you want to post this sort of Wikipedia-level crap. I suggest Key Publishing, IndiaDefence or RussiaDefence forums. You'll fit right in there.

Export stuff vs. Russian Uber-Kryptonite radars? LOL. Zhuk-AME (what do you think the E stands for? lol) is the newest Russian AESA and its marketed to the Indians.

Now we know a bit about this radar not only from the manufacturer's advertisements, but also the manufacturer of the AESA modules that go on it. They're the same as the ones on the PAK-FA's radar. The manufacturer claims a SAR ground resolution of 0.5m^2. That, to put it mildly, is terrible for a radar in 2016.

wewuzkangz2 wrote:Bro do you even check the RCS in given ranges?


I was talking about SAR resolution. I don't think you understand, so I won't bother explaining. Others may have more patience than me.

eloise wrote:Technically speaking, range can be achieved through brute force while SAR resolution is more related to pulse compression and signal processing


Right. SAR is more demanding and if we're trying to compare "technological levels", that one might give us a better picture of the relative technical capabilities of a radar. Range info for air targets is pretty uninformative for all the reasons you gave, unless they actually tell us a lot more info (which they don't of course)
Online

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 01:07

wewuzkangz2 wrote:Great whats next your going to say the an/spy-6 is not a GaN radar as well because it works in dual band freq with 3d AESA tech like the fga-35(3d) :bang: ???? Also what gives with the f-22 120 degree azimuth radar range search with the f-35 140 degree azimuth. N036 scans in 240 radar works in multiple bands, Indians in 2012 have plans of a 360 degree radar with 90 degree scan. And SAAB claiming to transfer GAN AESA tech if Indians purchase their Gripens in which cased gripen ES-05s have a 200 degree scan?


This guy is fun.

Listen feller, maybe you can ask the manufacturer of those AESA modules. They certainly don't claim anything GaN.

Holy molly! N036 is multi-band 863 deg radar? Wow! All this with licensed older generation Intel technology. What amazing technology and sorcery these Russian engineers have.

wewuzkangz2 wrote:ROFAR is a photon based radar in which case according to head official of KRET saying it can spot a human at 400km and identify their face. RCS of human according to global security is 1 face is less than 1/10 the size of the whole human body along with mass and weight. So my estimate seems it can detect an RCS at less than .1 from 400km. And the radar will display the target like its in a tv screen. Yeah go ahead and say that head KRET official is on some strong sh*t but we have yet to see what it can do.


Can it see through plasma stealth, though? Cause F-35 will just put up its plasma stealth shield and block your puny ROFAR.
Offline

wewuzkangz

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 01:23

arian wrote:
wewuzkangz2 wrote:Great whats next your going to say the an/spy-6 is not a GaN radar as well because it works in dual band freq with 3d AESA tech like the fga-35(3d) :bang: ???? Also what gives with the f-22 120 degree azimuth radar range search with the f-35 140 degree azimuth. N036 scans in 240 radar works in multiple bands, Indians in 2012 have plans of a 360 degree radar with 90 degree scan. And SAAB claiming to transfer GAN AESA tech if Indians purchase their Gripens in which cased gripen ES-05s have a 200 degree scan?


This guy is fun.

Listen feller, maybe you can ask the manufacturer of those AESA modules. They certainly don't claim anything GaN.

Holy molly! N036 is multi-band 863 deg radar? Wow! All this with licensed older generation Intel technology. What amazing technology and sorcery these Russian engineers have.

wewuzkangz2 wrote:ROFAR is a photon based radar in which case according to head official of KRET saying it can spot a human at 400km and identify their face. RCS of human according to global security is 1 face is less than 1/10 the size of the whole human body along with mass and weight. So my estimate seems it can detect an RCS at less than .1 from 400km. And the radar will display the target like its in a tv screen. Yeah go ahead and say that head KRET official is on some strong sh*t but we have yet to see what it can do.


Can it see through plasma stealth, though? Cause F-35 will just put up its plasma stealth shield and block your puny ROFAR.


???? But but Maks 2013 airshow they displayed it as GAN why does it have same features like 3d AESA and dual band modules like the GAN an/spy-6.... Name me a GaAS AESA radar(if you can) that features dual band freq with 3d radar tech bet you wont find that sh*t on a an/apg-77v1 or an/apg-81.

863 degrees? Is this the best way to defend an inferior 120 or 140 degree azimuth radar aircrafts. Well too bad its not working their inferiority complexes wont go away. Here go ahead and try comparing any 5th gen we have to this nice image. https://sputniknews.com/infographics/20 ... 025671772/

plasma stealth I put that on google and everything had the keyword Russia on it no joke try it :D but them knowing it as well ROFAR photons are a different story than radio waves in the EM detection field. No joke the T-50 works in most different radar bands, near infrared and UV.......Maybe Gamma and X-ray for next gen.
Online

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 01:33

wewuzkangz wrote:???? But but Maks 2013 airshow they displayed it as GAN why does it have same features like 3d AESA and dual band modules like the GAN an/spy-6.... Name me a GaAS AESA radar(if you can) that features dual band freq with 3d radar tech bet you wont find that sh*t on a an/apg-77v1 or an/apg-81.


You're an idiot. I'll just put it out there.

Image

wewuzkangz wrote:863 degrees? Is this the best way to defend an inferior 120 or 140 degree azimuth radar aircrafts. Well too bad its not working their inferiority complexes wont go away. Here go ahead and try comparing any 5th gen we have to this nice image. https://sputniknews.com/infographics/20 ... 025671772/

No joke the T-50 works in most different radar bands, near infrared and UV.......Maybe Gamma and X-ray for next gen.


Yep. Idiot. Confirmed.
Offline

wewuzkangz

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 01:43

arian wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:???? But but Maks 2013 airshow they displayed it as GAN why does it have same features like 3d AESA and dual band modules like the GAN an/spy-6.... Name me a GaAS AESA radar(if you can) that features dual band freq with 3d radar tech bet you wont find that sh*t on a an/apg-77v1 or an/apg-81.


You're an idiot. I'll just put it out there.

Image

wewuzkangz wrote:863 degrees? Is this the best way to defend an inferior 120 or 140 degree azimuth radar aircrafts. Well too bad its not working their inferiority complexes wont go away. Here go ahead and try comparing any 5th gen we have to this nice image. https://sputniknews.com/infographics/20 ... 025671772/

No joke the T-50 works in most different radar bands, near infrared and UV.......Maybe Gamma and X-ray for next gen.




Yep. Idiot. Confirmed.


So this puts you in the retard level lol???? Zhuk AE does it mention FGA-35(3d) well because as you know their are different variants.
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wrightwing and 5 guests