MiG-35 and MiG-29SMT presentation

[tflash]

Oh yes, Typhoon F.2 speaks to the imagination, certainly in pure A2A, with 4 amraam/4 asraam its very much like the next gear I would like to fly in Lockon!

[Pilotasso]

Even tranche 1 aircraft are NOT to messed arround.

[GGTharos]

I think you really mean to say 'PESA' and even so it isn't the same. PESA will be much faster.

 

 

remenber the other day saying the captor could some stuff AESA could?

 

[tflash]

Don't forget that what an Aesa radar could do in principle is not necessarily what a particular Aesa radar can achieve in reality. The APG-79 e.g. is meant as an evolution from APG-73, it is not the big quantum leap you might expect. Total power output is certainly an important factor. You won't find the very complex interleaving and LPI modes in all Aesa radars.

 

Captor is a radar meant for strong long-range performance.

 

My new opel Astra is in many ways more modern than my neighbours older BMW, but I still think there is a substantial difference ;)

[GGTharos]

No, as a combat vPilot I am quite certain you would find going from ANY mechanical radar to an AESA a quantum leap.

JUST the ability to maintain track on multiple bandits ANYWHERE withing the radar's fov, simultaneously and still search for more basically beats out anything that any mechanically scanned array can do - including CAPTOR.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Strictly speaking though, an electronically scanned array is always going to be faster than one that is mechnically scanned. ;)

 

Edit: GG beat me to it. :D

[tflash]

No, as a combat vPilot I am quite certain you would find going from ANY mechanical radar to an AESA a quantum leap.

JUST the ability to maintain track on multiple bandits ANYWHERE withing the radar's fov, simultaneously and still search for more basically beats out anything that any mechanically scanned array can do - including CAPTOR.

 

 

I do not agree: Captor is perfectly capable of doing precisely that.

[tflash]

Strictly speaking though, an electronically scanned array is always going to be faster than one that is mechnically scanned. ;)

 

Edit: GG beat me to it. :D

 

The way you state it I guess anyone has to agree: it is only logical that electronic steering will always outperform mechanical, and by a far margin.

 

But unless the air is literally crammed with hundreds of threads, I think Captor performance has reached a sufficient level to provide the required SA.

 

But of course, If you guys were not right, the next radar for Eurofighter, Amsar, wouldn't be Aesa ;)

[GGTharos]

I do not agree: Captor is perfectly capable of doing precisely that.

 

Captor can only pretend to actually simultaneously track multiple targets.

AESA radars actually DO track multiple targets simultaneously, where it is physically impossible for CAPTOR to do so. The data rate is not the same, nor is the data quality as a result, and where a mechanical array radar can interleave operating modes, AESA simple conducts them simultaneously.

[tflash]

The one thing I never understood is the power output. In a classical radar, you have one strong emmitter. You interleave indeed to be able to track multiple contacts. In an Aesa array, yu have thousands of emmitters, but I cannot imagine they are equally powerful? So the power comes from their combined, synchronized operation am I right: like a laser makin g of many beams a stronger one.

 

This means that if an Aesa radar where to track one hundred targets, it would be at the total power divided hundred - which is drastically reduced tracking power, whereas the classical radar would have to *interleave by hundred*, and thus become to slow to process anything vyable.

 

But then my point is: for the current number of threads to track, Captor realises sufficient interleaving to be as performant as, and I really think to outperform APG-79 (not APG-77 of course, not even remotely, but APG-79 is much, much cheaper).

[Alfa]

The one thing I never understood is the power output. In a classical radar, you have one strong emmitter. You interleave indeed to be able to track multiple contacts. In an Aesa array, yu have thousands of emmitters, but I cannot imagine they are equally powerful? So the power comes from their combined, synchronized operation am I right: like a laser makin g of many beams a stronger one.

 

Yes that would be correct :)

 

If you look at the specs posted by Kusch on the Zhuk-MA, you can see that apart from the number of simultaneously tracked and engaged targets, the basic performance in terms of radar range doesn't really exceed that of the Zhuk-M slotted array - not really surprising considering that the combined emitter output apparently is the same(6 Kw) and the antenna area must be similar as well(since the radar is installed in the same aircraft), but then the advantage of AESA also has more to do with what it can do with that power....i.e. functionality and flexibility.

 

- JJ.

[nscode]

The 6kW figure stated is power consumption, not RF output.

[Force_Feedback]

The 6kW figure stated is power consumption, not RF output.

 

Bingo ;) But phased arrays may use less power than CRTs, at least, that's with guitar amps :P Don't know how they compare to AESA radars, but I'd guess semiconductors use less energy than good ol' tubes :P

[nscode]

CRT? You mean vacuum tubes?

 

Anyway, I wouldn't expect the RF out to be anything above 50% of pwr consumption, and even that is very optimistic.

 

Guess the output would be clasified anyhow. This is just to give you some info if your electryc system is up to it.

[tflash]

And I also forgot to take into account that of course an AESA radar can BOTH use interleaving (time-sharing) and synchronous multitarget tracking, so it has basically much more options.

 

The essence of my remarks is just that a radar in a specific RF output class will not merely by the fact of AESA beat much more powerful systems (you cannot send the same energy twice). It will of course be at the upper end of its own class, no doubt. You could put an AESA radar in a Hawk trainer and dream about it beating a Flanker with a 1 meter dish, but this won't materialise.

[GGTharos]

Exactly. However also keep in mind that there are techniques to scan farther at lower power.

 

A very simple technique is to slow the scan speed: The F-15 has a radar mode that slows the antenna down in order to put more energy (power) in a given direction and also allow more processing time for that data. It has been able to detect Mirage F-1's in look-down 80nm away this way. We don't even get 80nm on a fighter _look-up_ in LO.

[Pilotasso]

^^^^ funny you should say that because from RL pilots comments here I have more and more sensation F-16AM's are pretty much close or superior to what we get from LOMAC's F-15 perfomance rates, radar and engines.

 

You can get targets at 60 miles in LO sometimes but mostly arround 40 miles, is closer to what we are getting for falcon VS falcon detection. LO F-15 radar is much much harder to operate, its difficulty resenbles to that of basic APG-66 on block 15 except these dont even have TWS o.O

APG-66V2 ease of use and smart modes completely smokes that of current APG-63 modeled in LOMAC. The falcons radar can keep a grip on the targets even when they notch the computer estimates where it will pop up again and reaquires. We get to loose it in LOMAC and thats it, you have to start all over again and youll loose the missile as well.

 

BTW we get to fly at 45000 feet regularly for BVR engagements, in LO you spend eons to get to that altitude and then you have to keep AB on on level flight.

[Anytime]

Basically all those little transmitters combine to form a beam out in front of the radar, giving similar or better performance than a classic rdr.

 

Also to steer the radar, the software slows the transmission down on some of the transmitters thus forming the beam at a different angle. It does nothing simulataneous, what it does it time share, due to the software controlled steering. If you start performing STT on targets you"ll most likely reduce your scan volume or slow it down. It"s all give and take, plus it always depends on how much money you have to spend. <- all ways the limiting factor! ;)

 

The other benefit of the beam forming out in front of the radar is that you can stand in front of it and not get fried. The guys operating this baby said I could stand in front of it, but I still declined there offer :)

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11432&rsbci=5&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

 

 

The one thing I never understood is the power output. In a classical radar, you have one strong emmitter. You interleave indeed to be able to track multiple contacts. In an Aesa array, yu have thousands of emmitters, but I cannot imagine they are equally powerful? So the power comes from their combined, synchronized operation am I right: like a laser makin g of many beams a stronger one.

 

This means that if an Aesa radar where to track one hundred targets, it would be at the total power divided hundred - which is drastically reduced tracking power, whereas the classical radar would have to *interleave by hundred*, and thus become to slow to process anything vyable.

 

But then my point is: for the current number of threads to track, Captor realises sufficient interleaving to be as performant as, and I really think to outperform APG-79 (not APG-77 of course, not even remotely, but APG-79 is much, much cheaper).

[tflash]

The other benefit of the beam forming out in front of the radar is that you can stand in front of it and not get fried. The guys operating this baby said I could stand in front of it, but I still declined there offer :)

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11432&rsbci=5&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

 

No way they could have tricked me into this either. Science is good but health matters!

[Alfa]

The 6kW figure stated is power consumption, not RF output.

 

The figure is stated incorrectly ;)

 

I have attached two photos - showing the new Zhuk AESA radar at display and associated specification table.

 

Here is an extraction from the table:

 

Specifications:

 

* Frequency range: X-band

* Number of main frequencies: 16

* Antenna diameter: 700 mm

* Scan limits: +/- 70 deg. in both azimuth and elevation

* Noise factor: 3 dB

* Average power: 1,5 kW

* Peak power: 6 kW

 

Performance:

 

* Tracks up to 30 targets in TWS

* Simultaneous engagement of to 8 targets

* Maximum detection range look-up(head-on/tail): 200/80 km

* Maximum detection range look-down(head-on/tail): 200/75 km

 

The average/peak power stated is exactly the same as for the Zhuk-M set with a planar slotted array, while the larger 700 mm antenna diameter(as opposed to 624 mm of the Zhuk-M) is due to the fixed AESA antenna being able to take full advantage of the radome diameter since it doesn't need clearance space to move inside the radome.

 

The detection ranges stated would seem to indicate a considerable increase over the Zhuk-M(with slotted array antenna), However, apart from the larger antenna diameter, this could also be down to the target type(RCS) - i.e. rather than being for a "fighter sized" target typically used for derriving range performance, it could be an absolute maximum detection range against a large "bomber sized" target.

 

- JJ.

[GGTharos]

I've seen a lot of claims, like for the IRBIS for example, dection of 1sqm target at 300km or some such... I think someone is overstating things ;)

[Alfa]

I've seen a lot of claims, like for the IRBIS for example, dection of 1sqm target at 300km or some such... I think someone is overstating things ;)

 

The specification table I attached is official information from Phazatron-NIIR - I think it is trust worthy :) . Besides, as I mentioned, it doesn't give any indication on RCS size for those range specifications.

 

- JJ.

[GGTharos]

Yep. I guess the look-down performance isn't too surprising eather. Since you have a better defined beam you automatically have less stuff to worry about.

[nscode]

Do I see an answer to our mistery? Missile correction for R-27T :)

[EvilBivol-1]

...and R-73 too? ;)