Sukhoi PAK FA

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
164
Likes
204
Country flag
Really? Is that how your brain work?
" radars are more accurate than infrared systems, excluding the atoll system"
:pound:let me guess, that because atoll is Russian system, therefore it operate by magic? :pound:
Firstly, radar aren't more accurate than infrared system. Radar can measure range and velocity of target while passive system like infrared generally can't do that by themselves but have to rely on supplementary system like LRF or method like multiship triangulation, so that the main advantage of radar over IIR. However, in term of angular accuracy, radar are far less accurate compared to Infrared system. Case in point, most IIR system would generate enough angular accuracy for you to visually see the target whereas the accuracy of most radar are equal to their beam width and on order of 0.5-1 degrees. Even SAR technique which can generate much better angular accuracy than beam width resolution still can't compete with IIR system in term of angular accuracy.
Secondly, there is nothing special about Atoll that would make it much better than common IIR, at the core, it is basically Russian DAS
your being oblivious again arent you spergy? I am going to start posting this for you on replies that exactly match this definition, not because I think its funny but because your a walking example of it, so be proud. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sperging out Infrared missiles have a long history of missing their targets compared to missiles with active firecontrol homing but I am sure you already know that. Even the U.S. uses radars to target ballistic missiles than infrared and of course aircrafts use radars over infrared systems. combination of infrared, radar and UV sounds better than perhaps infrared MAWS. I am assuming thats why it is talking so long for a DIRCM to be implemented on the F-35.

Firstly what with you and the obsession with the word "sperg"? :crazy: did you just learn that word and want to show off?. "Look at me, I'm so cool, I can use this meme from 4chan" ?. If the core of your argument is nothing but "sperg this", "sperg that" then it just make you look like an idiot
Well it is my favorite term because thats what you do non-stop compared to other users I have talked to or argued with because they were always on the same page as me, but you are special in your own way and that is already apparent across alot of forums so congrats, and congrats working hard in trying to find the image hoping I will not call you that but when I see a sperg-out I point it out.

Secondly, I didn't count either MSDN or SACM in the missile load comparison even though they are program of record because they don't have certain fate at the moment, and literally nothing is currently known about them, not the speed, not the range, not even the real shape . And you talking about hypothetical mini missile for Su-57 which isn't even mentioned by manufacturer as development program yet. The mini missile on Pansir S-1 doesn't count because it isn't design from ground up to be launched from weapon bay and it wasn't designed to be launched by aircraft either. Moreover, whether it is possible to make such a missile or not is only 1 problem, the bigger problem is whether they will be made depend alot on budget spending. There are many barrier apart from just the technical one.
For example: In the past, there is a program to basically put the JATCM and a version of on F-16, there is also another program to give F-16 a supersonic missile with submunition. But do you see either of these missile in full production now?. Now consider your argument, you are talking about weapons which aren't even mentioned development timeline yet, it is literally pure forum hypothetical at this point
2nd sperg response. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sperging out why did you bring up the SACM or CUDA on Wednesday for increasing loadout of the F-35? your are assuming a bigger loadout for the F-35 but not the Su-57?

How did you understand that sentence?
Basically what I mean is that, I don't count these mini missiles, because they don't exist, their fate are uncertain and there is nothing to discuss about the technical of a non existence missile. If you count them, then it would be logically to take into account SACM and CUDA because CUDA and SACM is also uncertain.
However, at least in case of SACM and MSND, we know money being pour in to investigate and study the flexibility of the system because they are program of record, whereas, in case of mini missile for Su-57,we have nothing
Vice versa there buddy, just do a better job by not contradicting yourself, like giving big number estimates but not allowing such an option for another aircraft. Or pretending you have not brought up missile projects despite being the 1st in hopes of increasing loadouts.

It doesn't matter what number you say if you can't prove, Can you show any development program from Sukhoi saying they make a new quad rack to increase the internal missile load of Su-57 to 10?. If you can't then your number is meaningless, it is the same whether you claim 10 or 1000.
So why bring up 8 missiles when I cant bring up 8-10, why bring up another missile project to increase the loadout of another 5th gen aircraft? I will await the new missile projects that will come-out for the weapons bay.

Firstly, in F-16.net, you were free to post until you straying away from technical discussion and start to jab about: this user, that user. You already have a bad history, then don't make bad impression by continues down the same path
Secondly, sorry but you don't know more about air defenses than Hocum. As obnoxious as he is, he did learn the physics to make the discussion interesting enough and he did give thought to his argument. It isn't about being right or wrong, it is about how much effort you spend on your argument. Like I said before, it is a balance of providing good content and being irritating.
OK I want you to go to that forum and pickout any responses where I "jabbed" other users, even my user account overscan. My BS meter is tingling at this response.
Well I hate having a 3 response limit , and everyone keeps calling that forum a forum of shills(makes sense) I would really love to thrash you around on air defenses compared to this guy especially how laughable it was that you actually believed a certain aircraft operating at certain frequencies. But if I decided to be a littile more brutal over there, than there goes my account. I wouldn't be surprised that you think two pilots holding the gay pride flag next to the F-35 based on its colors represents VHF/UHF frequency because you argument was sort of like that with the other users over there :truestory:

Again, this is not about whether new missile can excess the old one in range and speed. This is about how the range of each missile launch will affect its cruising speed. Read my example again
For example: F-4 top speed is Mach 2.23, combat radius is about 840 km, for comparison F-15 top speed is Mach 2.5 and combat radius is about 2037 km. So F-15 can fly faster and it can fly further than F-4. But that doesn't mean F-15 can fly 2037 km at Mach 2.5, when you fly long range , you will reduce your thrust to reduce fuel flow .
A ramjet missile do pretty much the same thing. If the target is 20 km from you, the missile will operate at max thrust and there you get the maximum speed and acceleration. If the target is 200 km from you, then the missile will throttle back to save fuel so that it can reach target. So you can choose either maximum range, or extremely high speed. But not both at the same time. The very key advantage of ramjet missile over simple solid fuel rocket is its ability to control fuel flow.
4th time here we go again. your just re-iterating the same shit everyone gets already from the same response above.

Firstly, F-16 and F-35 are both jet fighter, so they have similar operating condition. It is massively different from getting a weapon that intended to be used by ground vehicle, helicopter or drone and try to put them on fighter aircraft. It is not about the physical size, it is about others issue like temperature range, vibration , lateral G.
Secondly, "any type of platform" is a big exaggeration from that website, hermes simply can't be used by jet fighter, it is also highly unlikely that it can be used by submarine. If you want to prove me wrong?. Show me a single photo of fighter jet like Su-30 or Su-35 or Su-57 carrying that missile. I don't even need the photo of real aircraft just show me a mock up from manufacturer would be enough
F-16s can do air to ground missions especially with the same weapons that the F-35 uses. Current hermes can use it but there were considerations of the projects being used by aircrafts, along with the newer design having more platforms as an option, no need to sperg.

So what type of so called "maneuver hypersonic missile" that Buk-M3 were tested against? and how many hypersonic targets at the same time?
Also all test have high PK result, in development AIM-7 had around 90% PK in test, yet in war condition, it get around 3% PK
Неозвученные детали испытаний С-400 на полигоне Капустин Яр. Что имитировали ракеты-мишени «Фаворит-РМ»? (topwar.ru)

What is the uniqueness of the above four-hundred firing tests compared to earlier full-scale tests involving the interception of target missiles of the Kaban 96M6 family (in the 96M6M version with a range increased to 107 km and in the 96M6-03 version with integrated electronic warfare complex) ), RM-75V / MV “Armavir” and 3M20M3 “Singing”?

After all, it is well known that, for example, target missiles of the Kaban family can boast of an ultra-low effective reflective surface (EOC) of 0.015 square meters. m, a flight speed of 4680 km / h in the final segment of the active section of the trajectory and a quasi-ballistic flight path with an apogee of about 46 km.

The hypersonic target missiles of the Favorit-RM family will prepare the calculations of the Buk-M3, S-350 Vityaz and S-400 Triumph air defense systems to repulse massive strikes by the Deep Strike tactical ballistic missiles and AGM-183A aeroballistic missiles

The answer to this question is more than obvious: being a modification of the 5V55P anti-aircraft guided missile S-300PS anti-aircraft missile system, the Favorit-RM target missile retained the entire spectrum of flight technical qualities of the first.

In particular, the maximum flight speed of this product at the time of burning out the charge of a solid rocket engine reaches hypersonic values of 6650–7200 km / h (6.25–6.75 M), while on a descending branch of the trajectory (during diving at angles of 70 —80) Favorit-RM speed can reach 4.5-4M in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections of the trajectory.

Such speed parameters turn Favorit-RM into an extremely difficult target both for early modifications of Buk military air defense systems (Buk-M1 and Buk-M1-2), and for a more advanced version of Buk-M2.”

In the case of the implementation of “Favorite-RM” anti-aircraft maneuvers with 25-30G overloads and complex quasi-ballistic flight paths with large diving angles at the terminal section, their interception can only be accomplished with the help of promising Buk-M3, S-350 Vityaz and modernized S-400, the ammunition of which is represented by anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M317MA and 9M96DM.

Thanks to equipping these missiles with active radar homing heads of the Slate family with terminals of a two-way asynchronous data exchange line, for the first time in
history the air defense forces and antiaircraft defense of the airborne forces of Russia, it became possible to intercept the “Favorites-RM” and similar high-speed means of air attack of a potential enemy, attacking the “dead funnel”.

The latter is located above the position of the anti-aircraft missile battalion and is a cone-shaped sector of the airspace outside the elevation sector of the radar and guidance radar. Target designation of anti-aircraft missiles 9M317MA and 9M96DM in this case will be able to provide third-party means of radar and optical-electronic reconnaissance.

The unique flight performance of 9M317MA and 9M96DM missiles (performing maneuvers with overloads of 60–70G), due to the presence of a gas-jet system for deflecting the thrust vector in the first and gas-dynamic “belts” of transverse control engines in the second, will be revealed before calculating Bukov-M3, Vityazei ”And the updated“ four hundred ”unprecedented horizons in the field of counteracting the promising US operational-tactical ballistic missiles“ Deep Strike ”and aeroballistic missiles AGM-183A.

The imitation of precisely these elements of high precision
weapons generated by the erupted arms race against the background of the Pentagon’s denunciation of the INF Treaty is the primary calling of Favorit-RM hypersonic target missiles.”



"
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
729
Likes
522
Country flag
your being oblivious again arent you spergy? I am going to start posting this for you on replies that exactly match this definition, not because I think its funny but because your a walking example of it, so be proud. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sperging out Infrared missiles have a long history of missing their targets compared to missiles with active firecontrol homing but I am sure you already know that. Even the U.S. uses radars to target ballistic missiles than infrared and of course aircrafts use radars over infrared systems. combination of infrared, radar and UV sounds better than perhaps infrared MAWS. I am assuming thats why it is talking so long for a DIRCM to be implemented on the F-35.
:hail: Radar are main sensor instead of Infrared sensor because of the following advantages:
Firstly, radar can measure distance and target velocity very quickly by itself while Infrared sensor need to rely on LRF or triangulation
Secondly, radar generally not affected significantly by weather, cloud unlike infrared system
Thirdly, radar has longer range compared to infrared system in most situation
But radar doesn't have better angular accuracy than IIR or EO system, in fact not even remotely close.
AAS-42.jpg

And radar guided missiles doesn't have better hit rate than Infrared guided missile either, they are roughly the same
main-qimg-c73bc6b2fe8e5a8896316006201e61ab.png


Furthermore, DAS and EOTS aren't the only system on F-35, it also have APG-81, so not sure what the hell make you think it doesn't have a radar

Well it is my favorite term because thats what you do non-stop compared to other users I have talked to or argued with because they were always on the same page as me, but you are special in your own way and that is already apparent across alot of forums so congrats, and congrats working hard in trying to find the image hoping I will not call you that but when I see a sperg-out I point it out.
No, you use that term because you don't have any argument to win the technical argument. So you spam a derogatory term like an idiot :pound:
Literally like this:
1.jpg




2nd sperg response. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sperging out why did you bring up the SACM or CUDA on Wednesday for increasing loadout of the F-35? your are assuming a bigger loadout for the F-35 but not the Su-57?
Vice versa there buddy, just do a better job by not contradicting yourself, like giving big number estimates but not allowing such an option for another aircraft. Or pretending you have not brought up missile projects despite being the 1st in hopes of increasing loadouts.
So why bring up 8 missiles when I cant bring up 8-10, why bring up another missile project to increase the loadout of another 5th gen aircraft? I will await the new missile projects that will come-out for the weapons bay.
Once again, I have never count the load with SACM or CUDA in my load out comparison, and I even go as far as stating SACM and CUDA aren't count in my comparison, what the hell make you think they are included in the calculation?. And what big number estimate you are talking about?. 6 Missile is for normal size BVR missile, not the mini one
Capture.PNG


If I included SACM, CUDA when I count the missile load, then obviously I wouldn't get only 6 missile
CUDA.jpg




OK I want you to go to that forum and pickout any responses where I "jabbed" other users, even my user account overscan. My BS meter is tingling at this response.
Well I hate having a 3 response limit , and everyone keeps calling that forum a forum of shills(makes sense)
:crazy: Firstly, how can I pick out your jab respond when your account and your responds were both deleted?
and I'm pretty sure you aren't overscan either, given that his forums is probably even older than F-16.net
Secondly, if F-16.net is forum of shill then how should I call Russiandefense? :pound:

I would really love to thrash you around on air defenses compared to this guy especially how laughable it was that you actually believed a certain aircraft operating at certain frequencies. But if I decided to be a littile more brutal over there, than there goes my account. I wouldn't be surprised that you think two pilots holding the gay pride flag next to the F-35 based on its colors represents VHF/UHF frequency because you argument was sort of like that with the other users over there :truestory:
:pound:. Do you have dyslexia?. Where did I say anything about color?. You think ricnunes is also me?:pound:
My point was this:
From antenna map, F-22 EW antenna cover band 3 and band 4 but without any information on which frequency band 3 and band 4 cover
From RF integration table of F-22, we see EW antenna cover frequency range from 0.5-18 GHz.
From antenna map of F-35, it cover band 2,3,4 so by deduction the antenna on F-35 cover frequency lower than 0.5 GHz
f-22 ew.PNG

F-22 EW 2.PNG



f-35 RWR.PNG


Before you babbling about why I don't just take spazsinbad source, because they said no details were released and they also speculating
"The aircraft has radar warning receivers on the leading edge of its wings covering frequencies of bands 2, 3 and 4. Two band-3/4 RWRs are positioned close to the wingtips on the aft wing trailing edges and on the aft horizontal stabilisers, with additional RWRs covering band 2 either side of the aircraft’s exhaust. These provide the aircraft with full 360 degree coverage. Although the aircraft is presently configured to detect RF emissions in bands 2, 3 and 4, there is growth potential for this to encompass band-5 threats in the future. Although no details appear to have been publicly released it is thought that the AN/ASQ-239 can detect hostile radars transmitting in a two gigahertz to 20GHz waveband. Enhancements to the AN/ASQ-239 are being performed via a series of block enhancements which confer increasing levels of capability onto the self-protection system"


4th time here we go again. your just re-iterating the same shit everyone gets already from the same response above.
:crazy: The only reason I re-iterating the same shit is because you didn't understand it and keep making irrelevant point



F-16s can do air to ground missions especially with the same weapons that the F-35 uses. Current hermes can use it but there were considerations of the projects being used by aircrafts, along with the newer design having more platforms as an option, no need to sperg.
F-16 and F-35 are both fighter jet, so the requirement for their weapon are quite similar in term of temperature range, lateral G, vibration...etc. Whereas you wanting to put Hermes or Klevok-D2 which are originally ground launch weapon onto Su-57 is actually similar to put AGM-114 quad pack from AH-64 onto F-15. Very different requirements. The same reason, you never see Hermes or 9K121 Vikhr on fighter jet. As I said previously, if you want to prove that fighter jet like Su-30, su-35, Su-57 can carry Hermes then you only have to provide a single photo of them carry Hermes, it doesn't even need to be a real aircraft, just the mock up model from the manufacturer would be enough. What are you waiting for? :pound:.


Неозвученные детали испытаний С-400 на полигоне Капустин Яр. Что имитировали ракеты-мишени «Фаворит-РМ»? (topwar.ru)
In particular, the maximum flight speed of this product at the time of burning out the charge of a solid rocket engine reaches hypersonic values of 6650–7200 km / h (6.25–6.75 M), while on a descending branch of the trajectory (during diving at angles of 70 —80) Favorit-RM speed can reach 4.5-4M in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections of the trajectory.
The top speed of that Favorit-RM reach at burn out is 7200 km/h, keep in mind that this is the burn out speed and not the speed when it is very near target for Pansir-S and Buk to intercept, on descending trajectory , the speed that Favorit reach is Mach 4 -4.5 - around 4800 km/h
On the other hand, AGM-183 can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so average speed of 8000-9600 km/h.

“This thing is going to be able to go, in 10-12 minutes, almost 1,000 miles,”

In the tropospheric, Favorit-RM only reach Mach 2.5-3.5
Capture.PNG
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
164
Likes
204
Country flag
Radar are main sensor instead of Infrared sensor because of the following advantages:
Firstly, radar can measure distance and target velocity very quickly by itself while Infrared sensor need to rely on LRF or triangulation
Secondly, radar generally not affected significantly by weather, cloud unlike infrared system
Thirdly, radar has longer range compared to infrared system in most situation
But radar doesn't have better angular accuracy than IIR or EO system, in fact not even remotely close.
So infrared has a more limited role in range detection? And radar still has better accuracy in engaging aerial targets?

And radar guided missiles doesn't have better hit rate than Infrared guided missile either, they are roughly the same
So what you showing me is that the semi-active radar(not active) homing head is 16% better than the infrared one? and that info rmation dates back in the 1960s? Good grief where are you getting about the same. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/

Furthermore, DAS and EOTS aren't the only system on F-35, it also have APG-81, so not sure what the hell make you think it doesn't have a radar
Because this information is obvious like the 180 degree infrared option for the Su-57 IRST so I guess I will include it since I was talking about 360 degree coverage.
No, you use that term because you don't have any argument to win the technical argument. So you spam a derogatory term like an idiot :pound:
Literally like this:
Well you go on pointless rants where everyone gets the point while refusing to be on the same page most users are one when talking, as you can see across other forums people might think you have some kind of mental problems. Remember I am not the only user that complains about you spamming 5-10 images like an idiot or a sperg if you want to be exact. Are you Xanderscrew's cousin? I think it would be funny if they limit 3 images per post on forums, I couldn't imagine the pain when your spergetry gets more limited :bplease:

If I included SACM, CUDA when I count the missile load, then obviously I wouldn't get only 6 missile
Once again, I have never count the load with SACM or CUDA in my load out comparison, and I even go as far as stating SACM and CUDA aren't count in my comparison, what the hell make you think they are included in the calculation?. And what big number estimate you are talking about?. 6 Missile is for normal size BVR missile, not the mini one
What does this say, "And if we truly taking into account these hypothetical load out that isn't mentioned yet, then we must also take into account missile like Cuda or SACM, so really, Su-57 still doesn't carry more AAM than its counterpart like they are implied" Do you remember saying this, yes or no? So why are are you fretting that I have my own air to air increase loadouts?

If I included SACM, CUDA when I count the missile load, then obviously I wouldn't get only 6 missile
but you did like a week ago trying to increase the loadout passed 6, LMFAO.:pound:

Firstly, how can I pick out your jab respond when your account and your responds were both deleted?
and I'm pretty sure you aren't overscan either, given that his forums is probably even older than F-16.net
Secondly, if F-16.net is forum of shill then how should I call Russiandefense? :pound:
Search underscan and tequillashooter to see what I mean. Russia defense net users are actually open to users with different interests like RTN, secretprojects, etc. Only if F-16.net does not pussy out and give new users more post responses, but different opinions based on what kind of users are there are not welcome.

Do you have dyslexia?. Where did I say anything about color?. You think ricnunes is also me?
I guess its normal you would accuse me of dyslexia because people that have Asperger's(why I keep pointing out your sperg-outs) have a hard time communicating with other people which of course why create bottomless pitts and users, admins, mods have to most of the time create new topics and threads all because of you., why is that? I guess there is a reason why people call that forum a echo chamber or hivemind where everyone shares a single braincell. But not only was my post their deleted but even yours because the admin probably thought you were some kind of autist where you talk about, "look at these colors, the F-35 can jam VHF and UHF to.

My point was this:
From antenna map, F-22 EW antenna cover band 3 and band 4 but without any information on which frequency band 3 and band 4 cover
From RF integration table of F-22, we see EW antenna cover frequency range from 0.5-18 GHz.
From antenna map of F-35, it cover band 2,3,4 so by deduction the antenna on F-35 cover frequency lower than 0.5 GHz
But of course as usual you dont know if the F-35 jams at lower UHF frequencies or even the VHF frequencies? other than spaz giving the a source?

Before you babbling about why I don't just take spazsinbad source, because they said no details were released and they also speculating
"The aircraft has radar warning receivers on the leading edge of its wings covering frequencies of bands 2, 3 and 4. Two band-3/4 RWRs are positioned close to the wingtips on the aft wing trailing edges and on the aft horizontal stabilisers, with additional RWRs covering band 2 either side of the aircraft’s exhaust. These provide the aircraft with full 360 degree coverage. Although the aircraft is presently configured to detect RF emissions in bands 2, 3 and 4, there is growth potential for this to encompass band-5 threats in the future. Although no details appear to have been publicly released it is thought that the AN/ASQ-239 can detect hostile radars transmitting in a two gigahertz to 20GHz waveband. Enhancements to the AN/ASQ-239 are being performed via a series of block enhancements which confer increasing levels of capability onto the self-protection system"
Well I guess my ban occurred because I said he was the only user that gave information about the EW range showing that other user conversations where pointless. But I didn't think users over there would be such a sensitive bunch or frankly even give a shit what goes on most of the time, even Russia defense net wouldn't give an immediate ban based on that. Is the F-35 even getting a GaN upgrade like the NGJ? That is the only EW suite that jams at VHF and lower UHF levels. The NGJ looks huge as hell to me and usually antennas that operate at this frequency as far as MMICs go need bigger antennas.

The only reason I re-iterating the same shit is because you didn't understand it and keep making irrelevant point
No I already get it, but trying to understand why you are trying so hard to avoid the same questions I keep asking you? Out of all other users I talked to here and different forums I don't have this problem. Even users at F-16.net that have the same interests as you are easier to communicate with.

F-16 and F-35 are both fighter jet, so the requirement for their weapon are quite similar in term of temperature range, lateral G, vibration...etc. Whereas you wanting to put Hermes or Klevok-D2 which are originally ground launch weapon onto Su-57 is actually similar to put AGM-114 quad pack from AH-64 onto F-15. Very different requirements. The same reason, you never see Hermes or 9K121 Vikhr on fighter jet. As I said previously, if you want to prove that fighter jet like Su-30, su-35, Su-57 can carry Hermes then you only have to provide a single photo of them carry Hermes, it doesn't even need to be a real aircraft, just the mock up model from the manufacturer would be enough. What are you waiting for
Who said that the newer hermes and even mentions or aircrafts for klevok-D2 are ground launch weapons when one states more platforms to use it and the other includes an airforce? I guess there is a reason why your trying this hard to draw conclusions on these projects because air defenses will have a harder time intercepting these than miniature cruise missiles or glide bombs that shorter range air defenses are getting improved to engage with like the pantsirs and tor systems that you like to talk about so much :rofl:. I already brought up the sources and use of the weapons.

The top speed of that Favorit-RM reach at burn out is 7200 km/h, keep in mind that this is the burn out speed and not the speed when it is very near target for Pansir-S and Buk to intercept, on descending trajectory , the speed that Favorit reach is Mach 4 -4.5 - around 4800 km/h
On the other hand, AGM-183 can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so average speed of 8000-9600 km/h.
Yeah but, they still included the agm-183A and PRSM missile in which the missiles have higher G loads than the missiles being used against them, The S-400 will get newer radars like the Nioby soon. is the AGM-183 the official speed of that? some gave speeds like mach 20 and mach 40-48, I am not kidding either.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
729
Likes
522
Country flag
So infrared has a more limited role in range detection? And radar still has better accuracy in engaging aerial targets?
Radar don't have better accuracy, I explained to you already. For rapid range and velocity measurement radar can do by itself while Infrared system have to rely on laser range finder. And Radar are longer range. But Infrared system has much better angular accuracy, because wavelength they used is much shorter.


So what you showing me is that the semi-active radar(not active) homing head is 16% better than the infrared one? and that info rmation dates back in the 1960s? Good grief where are you getting about the same. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/
:hail: I can understand if your English comprehension is bad but how the heck you don't even know how to count?
The success rate of AIM-7 is 51%, the success rate of AIM-9 is 67%, and your take from that is "semi active radar is 16% better than infrared one????" :pound::pound: Do I have to teach you 67 > 51 too.
And semi active radar missile is still guided by radar, they are not the most modern method of guidance there is, but the AIM-9 used in the past doesn't have the most modern IIR sensor either. Most of them also use reticle sensor
main-qimg-c73bc6b2fe8e5a8896316006201e61ab.png

Secondly, a singular case of AIM-9X missed target due to malfunction prove nothing, if you want I can brought up case where an F-16 repeatedly dodge 6 SAM



Well you go on pointless rants where everyone gets the point while refusing to be on the same page most users are one when talking, as you can see across other forums people might think you have some kind of mental problems. Remember I am not the only user that complains about you spamming 5-10 images like an idiot or a sperg if you want to be exact. Are you Xanderscrew's cousin? I think it would be funny if they limit 3 images per post on forums, I couldn't imagine the pain when your spergetry gets more limited
On the same page?
You mean like when you stubbornly insist that this symbol "A < B" mean A is bigger than B in F-16.net?. :pound:.Or when you spend 10-12 posts in secretproject trying to argue that 50 inches2 equal to around 1.2 m2 and I have to teach you how to convert area unit?:pound:. I mean you literally do that in the above post when you imply 51% is smaller than 67% too, but I hope you don't try to argue that 51%>67% this time :pound:. At least, I don't go retard when it is simple and basics knowledge


What does this say, "And if we truly taking into account these hypothetical load out that isn't mentioned yet, then we must also take into account missile like Cuda or SACM, so really, Su-57 still doesn't carry more AAM than its counterpart like they are implied" Do you remember saying this, yes or no? So why are are you fretting that I have my own air to air increase loadouts?
How did you understand that sentence?
Basically what I mean is that, I don't count these mini missiles for SU-57, because they don't exist, their fate are uncertain and there is nothing to discuss about the technical of a non existence missile. If you count them, then it would be logically to take into account SACM and CUDA. But in my comparison I did count CUDA and SACM because their fate is uncertain.
However, at least in case of SACM and MSND, we know money being pour in to investigate and study the flexibility of the system because they are program of record, whereas, in case of mini missile for Su-57,we have nothing



but you did like a week ago trying to increase the loadout passed 6, LMFAO
:) How about this, you show the screen shoot of me adding the AAM loadout of F-35 pass 6 from past week or my comment that Cuda/SACM was included when I count the load


Search underscan and tequillashooter to see what I mean. Russia defense net users are actually open to users with different interests like RTN, secretprojects, etc. Only if F-16.net does not pussy out and give new users more post responses, but different opinions based on what kind of users are there are not welcome.
I don't remember your underscan account but your tequillashooter wasn't banned until you decided it is cool to sway from technical discussion and babbling about this/that user. There are users who strongly pro Russian in F-16.net such as Hocum, Milosh but they aren't banned despite many heated discussion while you get banned very often. Because as I said before, your content isn't good enough for the mod to stand the irritation that you cause.
Russian defense is pretty much an echo chamber so in that aspect they aren't any better than F-16.net, sure, maybe they don't ban user often, but then they also lack the number of real pilots that F-16.net have.


I guess its normal you would accuse me of dyslexia because people that have Asperger's(why I keep pointing out your sperg-outs) have a hard time communicating with other people which of course why create bottomless pitts and users, admins, mods have to most of the time create new topics and threads all because of you., why is that? I guess there is a reason why people call that forum a echo chamber or hivemind where everyone shares a single braincell. But not only was my post their deleted but even yours because the admin probably thought you were some kind of autist where you talk about, "look at these colors, the F-35 can jam VHF and UHF to.
:pound:For someone who love throw these words like Asperger and sperg around, you have them both along with dyslexia, go to the thread retard, I'm not the one who talked about color, it was ricnunes, and his post is literally still there. If you think mod delete my post, you can use waybackmachine to check :pound:
color.PNG




But of course as usual you dont know if the F-35 jams at lower UHF frequencies or even the VHF frequencies? other than spaz giving the a source?
As I explained earlier, Spaz source said: " Although no details appear to have been publicly released it is thought that " that mean they don't know and have to speculate. There isn't any information about the band coverage of ASQ-239, the purpose is to speculate


Well I guess my ban occurred because I said he was the only user that gave information about the EW range showing that other user conversations where pointless. But I didn't think users over there would be such a sensitive bunch or frankly even give a shit what goes on most of the time, even Russia defense net wouldn't give an immediate ban based on that.
That wasn't why you are banned. You can stop with the victim card now.
You aren't the only pro Russian user there is, but you got banned probably more than all of them combined, then you should consider the problem is with you.
It is the same with your tequilashooter account. If you don't want them to ban you, then focus on the technical discussion, like what Hocum and Milosh do, don't sways off topic.


No I already get it, but trying to understand why you are trying so hard to avoid the same questions I keep asking you? Out of all other users I talked to here and different forums I don't have this problem. Even users at F-16.net that have the same interests as you are easier to communicate with.
Because you were asking completely irrelevant question. For example: if I tell you: " a car will consume more fuel when the driver drive fast" and you reply with " do you want me to show how much the Buggati better than the 1990 Ferrari". How do you want me to reply to that when it is completely irrelevant to the matter being discussed?

Who said that the newer hermes and even mentions or aircrafts for klevok-D2 are ground launch weapons when one states more platforms to use it and the other includes an airforce? I guess there is a reason why your trying this hard to draw conclusions on these projects because air defenses will have a harder time intercepting these than miniature cruise missiles or glide bombs that shorter range air defenses are getting improved to engage with like the pantsirs and tor systems that you like to talk about so much :rofl:. I already brought up the sources and use of the weapons.
No, I'm not dragging this out. I'm explaining to you something that should be very obvious to everyone else. Putting a ground launched missile onto a fighter jet isn't a simple task, putting it inside the weapon bay of a stealth fighter is an order of magnitude harder. Hermes , Vikhr and AGM-114 are just examples to show you that. They can be launched by helicopter, but putting them on fighter jet is a whole different story.


Yeah but, they still included the agm-183A and PRSM missile in which the missiles have higher G loads than the missiles being used against them, The S-400 will get newer radars like the Nioby soon. is the AGM-183 the official speed of that? some gave speeds like mach 20 and mach 40-48, I am not kidding either.
What they included and what they could demonstrate are different.
PRSM and ARRW are very different weapon with completely different trajectory
And boost glider like ARRW don't have constant speed, what I gave you is average speed.
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
164
Likes
204
Country flag
Radar don't have better accuracy, I explained to you already. For rapid range and velocity measurement radar can do by itself while Infrared system have to rely on laser range finder. And Radar are longer range. But Infrared system has much better angular accuracy, because wavelength they used is much shorter.
So why are infrared systems called secondary sensors right behind radars? Why do ships use radars over infrared systems when intercepting high speed targets? If infrared is limited in range than that gives a lesser reaction time to intercept incoming targets for a MAWS. Which is why we still see no DIRCM on the F-35 so maybe we will see it based on the performance of the next generation systems.

:hail: I can understand if your English comprehension is bad but how the heck you don't even know how to count?
The success rate of AIM-7 is 51%, the success rate of AIM-9 is 67%, and your take from that is "semi active radar is 16% better than infrared one????" :pound::pound: Do I have to teach you 67 > 51 too.
And semi active radar missile is still guided by radar, they are not the most modern method of guidance there is, but the AIM-9 used in the past doesn't have the most modern IIR sensor either. Most of them also use reticle sensor
Dude I am not complaining that you are using information from the 1960s comparing infrared to radar but there is one missile that is infrared and semi-active and the other just active? I dont know why you like to span emojis like you think your a sperg like you did with dev when you carried out a long conversation(everyone already gets that your a special mental case) but this chart is already irreverent because I have doubts that you even know there is semi-active radar involved in the 1960s. IRST systems have shown limited range capabilities against aircrafts and I am assuming that air to air missiles with smaller engines give a less reaction time.

Secondly, a singular case of AIM-9X missed target due to malfunction prove nothing, if you want I can brought up case where an F-16 repeatedly dodge 6 SAM
yeah, malfunctioned...... No need I am not interested in conflicts the U.S. has against poor SAM systems.

On the same page?
You mean like when you stubbornly insist that this symbol "A < B" mean A is bigger than B in F-16.net?. :pound:.Or when you spend 10-12 posts in secretproject trying to argue that 50 inches2 equal to around 1.2 m2 and I have to teach you how to convert area unit?:pound:. I mean you literally do that in the above post when you imply 51% is smaller than 67% too, but I hope you don't try to argue that 51%>67% this time :pound:. At least, I don't go retard when it is simple and basics knowledge
Oh you are coping again, Is there anything else you want to cry about, I will give you a hug if that makes you feel better? Seriosly is their anything else you want to add? Right now I dont even think you are aware that one of those missiles is infrared and semi-active options. I already have enough past events to bring up myself but I am not that desperate as you, or that other users telling you to quit spamming like a sperglord:truestory:

How did you understand that sentence?
Basically what I mean is that, I don't count these mini missiles for SU-57, because they don't exist, their fate are uncertain and there is nothing to discuss about the technical of a non existence missile. If you count them, then it would be logically to take into account SACM and CUDA. But in my comparison I did count CUDA and SACM because their fate is uncertain.
However, at least in case of SACM and MSND, we know money being pour in to investigate and study the flexibility of the system because they are program of record, whereas, in case of mini missile for Su-57,we have nothing
In case you keep forgetting we were talking about future loadouts of the aircraft, while I lay out options to what those new air to air missiles can bring if introduced to the Su-57. What I am trying to figure out is why your mad at me giving a 8-10 loadout possibility when you give a 8 loadout possibility for that aircraft?

How about this, you show the screen shoot of me adding the AAM loadout of F-35 pass 6 from past week or my comment that Cuda/SACM was included when I count the load
days before Wednesday you gave 6, Well I will be repeating the same post 100 times and you still wont admit it that you gave a higher load with CUDA so here we go.
1612578133351.png

I don't remember your underscan account but your tequillashooter wasn't banned until you decided it is cool to sway from technical discussion and babbling about this/that user. There are users who strongly pro Russian in F-16.net such as Hocum, Milosh but they aren't banned despite many heated discussion while you get banned very often. Because as I said before, your content isn't good enough for the mod to stand the irritation that you cause.
Russian defense is pretty much an echo chamber so in that aspect they aren't any better than F-16.net, sure, maybe they don't ban user often, but then they also lack the number of real pilots that F-16.net have.
Hold on which user was I even babbling about, please tell me? all my posts were exactly related to the subjects at hand in every thread. I dont see the same kind of supposed Russian nationalism as I do with Hocum or Milosh(doubt they even go by different user names at russiadefense net because they dont exist there) the users at russia defense net. If we were to throw magnumcromagnon, GarryB, kvs, Mindstorm, miketheterrible, Isos, BigGazza, Backman, into secretprojects and than throw in jessmo, xanderscrew, ricnunes, mixelflick ,botsing, hornetfinn, hythelday, element1loop, etc etc into secretprojects the admin and moderators will not be looking at threads, you will see their usernames saying performing moderation duties. Users shit on Rogozin, and russian military equipment but they do not get banned doing so compared to me not even talking shit about any U.S. military equipment. Underscan has 19 posts to 14 posts my other account which is not so different in posts went from 19 to 9 posts. If a pro-US 4chan /k/ board calls f-16.net shills than you know the situation is just that bad.

For someone who love throw these words like Asperger and sperg around, you have them both along with dyslexia, go to the thread retard, I'm not the one who talked about color, it was ricnunes, and his post is literally still there. If you think mod delete my post, you can use waybackmachine to check
So one dumbass was talking about colors the other one is talking about different antennas that he thinks is what the EW systems on the F-35 will cover in the VHF and lower UHF which still includes you on that quote I posted. Thanks, I forgot how intellectual that place can be.

As I explained earlier, Spaz source said: " Although no details appear to have been publicly released it is thought that " that mean they don't know and have to speculate. There isn't any information about the band coverage of ASQ-239, the purpose is to speculate
Well I am speculating that only the EA-18 Growler uses VHF and UHF and is to use that next gen jammer to cover F-35s and F-22s in their missions. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...nd-competition-for-one-of-them-just-heated-up

1612578405462.png

I do not know why your still persistent on believing that the F-35 could go very low on frequency in that f-16.net thread, that if it did for RWRs than there would be no need for the NGJ.

That wasn't why you are banned. You can stop with the victim card now.
You aren't the only pro Russian user there is, but you got banned probably more than all of them combined, then you should consider the problem is with you.
It is the same with your tequilashooter account. If you don't want them to ban you, then focus on the technical discussion, like what Hocum and Milosh do, don't sways off topic.
OK, for the 100th time where am I off topic with any, I mean any of my posts with both accounts? There are pro-US aviation fans that are more worse than me at russia defense net but I do not see them getting banned. Even if they were off topic admins would move it to seperate thread like the multiple times they had to do with you at secretprojects, I think LMFS decided to contain your sperg in creating a seperate thread to just to talk to you and I think your the one responsible to why a su-57 RCS thread had to be created. But of course everyone knows thats you being you.

No, I'm not dragging this out. I'm explaining to you something that should be very obvious to everyone else. Putting a ground launched missile onto a fighter jet isn't a simple task, putting it inside the weapon bay of a stealth fighter is an order of magnitude harder. Hermes , Vikhr and AGM-114 are just examples to show you that. They can be launched by helicopter, but putting them on fighter jet is a whole different story.
If there is a 100 meter race would your rather choose a ferrari with 1/8th of fuel to get to the finish line or a full tank on a toyota to get to the finish line 1st? All scramjets give a shit about is the speed given based on the 1st stage. If lesser fuel is used to get it start the 2nd stage at a shorter distance than a longer distance with more fuel and more time, that is all that matters in the end.

What they included and what they could demonstrate are different.
PRSM and ARRW are very different weapon with completely different trajectory
And boost glider like ARRW don't have constant speed, what I gave you is average speed.
Different trajectory like maneuverability that was demonstrated on the kinzhal, yars and iskander missiles? Is that average speed official or not compared to mach 20 and mach 40-48 sources, some are even saying mach 5, do you have proof that yours is official? Although I don't think the tests done with those air defenses is their max capabilities or if ARRW or PRSM are just as maneuverable.

1612578883301.png

It sounds like those air defenses according to that source were dealing with 30gs but with more maneuverable interceptor missiles and better homing capabilities.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
729
Likes
522
Country flag
So why are infrared systems called secondary sensors right behind radars? Why do ships use radars over infrared systems when intercepting high speed targets? If infrared is limited in range than that gives a lesser reaction time to intercept incoming targets for a MAWS. Which is why we still see no DIRCM on the F-35 so maybe we will see it based on the performance of the next generation systems.
:crazy: This is why I keep having to repeat my explanation over and over and over again.
You keep asking the same question even though it has been explained to you about a million times already.
Radar are main sensor instead of Infrared sensor because of the following advantages:
Firstly, radar can measure distance and target velocity very quickly by itself while Infrared sensor need to rely on LRF or triangulation. For long range engagement with missiles, you must know the distance to target and their velocity. Because your missile must lead target (flying toward the future position of target). For DIRCM which use laser, you don't need to lead target
Secondly, radar generally not affected significantly by weather, cloud unlike infrared system
Thirdly, radar has longer range compared to infrared system in most situation
But radar doesn't have better angular accuracy than IIR or EO system, not even remotely close.
F-35 doesn't have DIRCM yet have nothing to do with the comparative angular accuracy between infrared sensor and radar. They already successful cue DIRCM on fast jet with IIR sensor
DIRCM fighter jet.png

DIRCM 2.png

The problem have to do with funding. There is limited funding to go around and there are higher priority to do at the moment than integrating a DIRCM on f-35, things like side kick launcher, SDB II, AARGM-ER integration and cognitive EW are far more important and they will be integrate first. Moreover, there is also plan to integrate a full size laser DEW on F-35 so integrating little DIRCM turret can be quite redundant.




Dude I am not complaining that you are using information from the 1960s comparing infrared to radar but there is one missile that is infrared and semi-active and the other just active? I dont know why you like to span emojis like you think your a sperg like you did with dev when you carried out a long conversation(everyone already gets that your a special mental case) but this chart is already irreverent because I have doubts that you even know there is semi-active radar involved in the 1960s. IRST systems have shown limited range capabilities against aircrafts and I am assuming that air to air missiles with smaller engines give a less reaction time.
yeah, malfunctioned...... No need I am not interested in conflicts the U.S. has against poor SAM systems.
The chart is comparing between the reticle IR sensor with SARH missiles. SARH aren't the most modern radar guided missiles but neither is IR reticles sensors. They compared between AIM-7 and AIM-9 because those are the two missile with very high number of shot , with higher quantity of samples, the conclusion is more accurate.
Missile have smaller engine, but their engine are quite hot. Secondly, missiles also have very small RCS


Oh you are coping again, Is there anything else you want to cry about, I will give you a hug if that makes you feel better? Seriosly is their anything else you want to add? Right now I dont even think you are aware that one of those missiles is infrared and semi-active options. I already have enough past events to bring up myself but I am not that desperate as you, or that other users telling you to quit spamming like a sperglord
Hold on which user was I even babbling about, please tell me? all my posts were exactly related to the subjects at hand in every thread. I dont see the same kind of supposed Russian nationalism as I do with Hocum or Milosh(doubt they even go by different user names at russiadefense net because they dont exist there) the users at russia defense net. If we were to throw magnumcromagnon, GarryB, kvs, Mindstorm, miketheterrible, Isos, BigGazza, Backman, into secretprojects and than throw in jessmo, xanderscrew, ricnunes, mixelflick ,botsing, hornetfinn, hythelday, element1loop, etc etc into secretprojects the admin and moderators will not be looking at threads, you will see their usernames saying performing moderation duties. Users shit on Rogozin, and russian military equipment but they do not get banned doing so compared to me not even talking shit about any U.S. military equipment. Underscan has 19 posts to 14 posts my other account which is not so different in posts went from 19 to 9 posts. If a pro-US 4chan /k/ board calls f-16.net shills than you know the situation is just that bad.
OK, for the 100th time where am I off topic with any, I mean any of my posts with both accounts? There are pro-US aviation fans that are more worse than me at russia defense net but I do not see them getting banned. Even if they were off topic admins would move it to seperate thread like the multiple times they had to do with you at secretprojects, I think LMFS decided to contain your sperg in creating a seperate thread to just to talk to you and I think your the one responsible to why a su-57 RCS thread had to be created. But of course everyone knows thats you being you.
Coping with what?:crazy: I'm not the one who play the victim card every time I discuss. Look back at the comments on this thread alone, I mainly focus on the technical discussion whereas you start by complain about why I explain too much, then start spam a bunch of derogatory terms, then cry about how you were always banned from other forums:pound:
Take along look at yourself, your tequilashooter account was only banned when you start babbling about 1 user vs all users. If you keep it to the technical discussion, then you won't be banned. For example: hocum shit on US equipment, but his argument is about technical problem so he won't get banned. It doesn't mean what he say is accurate or that you must away be correct to avoid the ban hammer, but don't go off topic, and if you absolutely need to go off topic then it better be about technical discussion rather than a rant about this users, that users. No one actually give a fuck about that. I can go off topic on spacebattles, secretproject, F-16.net...etc and I don't get banned, because I mainly focus on the technical discussion. Which is at least useful or interesting to read for some people. No one want to read about that one time you were banned because the Mod was being mean, the constant 4/chan styles spam doesn't help your case either.

In case you keep forgetting we were talking about future loadouts of the aircraft, while I lay out options to what those new air to air missiles can bring if introduced to the Su-57. What I am trying to figure out is why your mad at me giving a 8-10 loadout possibility when you give a 8 loadout possibility for that aircraft?
days before Wednesday you gave 6, Well I will be repeating the same post 100 times and you still wont admit it that you gave a higher load with CUDA so here we go.
I actually made myself very clear and have explained myself repeatedly for this same point.
Basically what I mean is that, I don't count these hypothetical mini missiles for SU-57, because they don't exist, their fate are uncertain and there is nothing to discuss about the technical of a non existence missile. If you count them, then it would be logically to take into account SACM and CUDA. But in my comparison I didn't count CUDA and SACM because their fate is uncertain. That why you see my number for internal load of F-35 only add up to 6 instead
Secondly, at least in case of SACM and MSND, we know money being pour in to investigate and study the flexibility of the system because they are program of record, whereas, in case of mini missile for Su-57,we have nothing
1612578133351.png






So one dumbass was talking about colors the other one is talking about different antennas that he thinks is what the EW systems on the F-35 will cover in the VHF and lower UHF which still includes you on that quote I posted. Thanks, I forgot how intellectual that place can be.
Well I am speculating that only the EA-18 Growler uses VHF and UHF and is to use that next gen jammer to cover F-35s and F-22s in their missions. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...nd-competition-for-one-of-them-just-heated-up
View attachment 76997
I do not know why your still persistent on believing that the F-35 could go very low on frequency in that f-16.net thread, that if it did for RWRs than there would be no need for the NGJ.
Because there is no public information about the exact frequency coverage of F-35 in GHz, the only information we have is that ASQ-239 cover band 2, band 3, band 4 and after F-35 block 4 it will cover band 5 as well. But there is no information on which frequency these band represent
We know ALR-94 on F-22 cover band 3 and band 4, and wee also know it cover 0.5 GHz to 18 GHz
So we can deduce that ASQ-239 on F-35 which cover band 2, band 3, band 4 will go down to lower frequency.
F35-TH18-Block4.png

RclUR2V.jpg


NGJ is an active standoff support jamming system, its purpose is very different from ESM system such as ASQ-239 on F-35. AESA jammer need to be much bigger to have adequate element spacing for electronic beam steering.
Secondly, it isn't like VHF antenna are too big to put on aircraft
End cap VHF.PNG


If there is a 100 meter race would your rather choose a ferrari with 1/8th of fuel to get to the finish line or a full tank on a toyota to get to the finish line 1st? All scramjets give a shit about is the speed given based on the 1st stage. If lesser fuel is used to get it start the 2nd stage at a shorter distance than a longer distance with more fuel and more time, that is all that matters in the end.
But not all race are at 100 meters. What if it is 1000 km race?. Just like not all ramjet missile launch is used against target only 10 km away, what if the target is 200-500 km away?
Secondly, burning fuel quicker doesn't guarantee that you need less volume of fuel, it mean you burn through the fuel faster to generate more thrust. But the total energy generated by that same volume of fuel is the same


Different trajectory like maneuverability that was demonstrated on the kinzhal, yars and iskander missiles? Is that average speed official or not compared to mach 20 and mach 40-48 sources, some are even saying mach 5, do you have proof that yours is official? Although I don't think the tests done with those air defenses is their max capabilities or if ARRW or PRSM are just as maneuverable.
It sounds like those air defenses according to that source were dealing with 30gs but with more maneuverable interceptor missiles and better homing capabilities.
No one use RS-24 yars to test Buk M3 or Pansir-s1 because Yars is an ICBM, testing it is a serious issue
Kinzhal is just recently being introduced, so I don't think they are even being tested against S-400or S-500,let alone Buk or Pansir.
You can come back to my previous post to see where the quote come from, boost glider have to glide in atmosphere, so the shorter the range, the faster they go, very similar to a Sabot round but they can maintain their speed much better thanks to the thin air at high altitude
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
164
Likes
204
Country flag
This is why I keep having to repeat my explanation over and over and over again.
You keep asking the same question even though it has been explained to you about a million times already.
Radar are main sensor instead of Infrared sensor because of the following advantages:
Firstly, radar can measure distance and target velocity very quickly by itself while Infrared sensor need to rely on LRF or triangulation. For long range engagement with missiles, you must know the distance to target and their velocity. Because your missile must lead target (flying toward the future position of target). For DIRCM which use laser, you don't need to lead target
Secondly, radar generally not affected significantly by weather, cloud unlike infrared system
Thirdly, radar has longer range compared to infrared system in most situation
But radar doesn't have better angular accuracy than IIR or EO system, not even remotely close.
F-35 doesn't have DIRCM yet have nothing to do with the comparative angular accuracy between infrared sensor and radar. They already successful cue DIRCM on fast jet with IIR sensor
Why do you keep sperging out over and over and over again? you even now stating that radar has a longer range than infrared when there are multiple sources that aircraft IRSTs do not even even exceed radars in ranges. Your speaking in acronym soups against hoping to obscure a conversation, what is LRF, radars use triangulation as well, I dont speak sperg, this is why others have a difficult time communicating with you. And if your are saying radar is not effected by weather are you just making it sound better as a choice to be used as MAWs compared to an aircraft that uses radars, UV and infrared coverage?

The problem have to do with funding. There is limited funding to go around and there are higher priority to do at the moment than integrating a DIRCM on f-35, things like side kick launcher, SDB II, AARGM-ER integration and cognitive EW are far more important and they will be integrate first. Moreover, there is also plan to integrate a full size laser DEW on F-35 so integrating little DIRCM turret can be quite redundant.
Russia has smaller funding or investments on the Su-57 even they had managed to acquire similar shit to what you are talking about for the F-35. Your telling me that 1.5 trillion is not enough funding?

The chart is comparing between the reticle IR sensor with SARH missiles. SARH aren't the most modern radar guided missiles but neither is IR reticles sensors. They compared between AIM-7 and AIM-9 because those are the two missile with very high number of shot , with higher quantity of samples, the conclusion is more accurate.
Missile have smaller engine, but their engine are quite hot. Secondly, missiles also have very small RCS
The F-35 states its current IRST is equivalent to the F-16 Sniper XR which operates at the mid-wave infrared spectrum. OLS-35 is uses long wave infrared detection to track cooler targets than mid-wave infrared and at best that is 30km in front and 90kms in back meaning incoming air to air missiles will all be faced first. So the range is now going to be significantly less than this because midwave is for detecting hotter and not cooler targets than long-wave infrared. But at this point radars which are not just the front are already able to track smaller size targets way farther than current long wave infrared systems meaning the Su-57 is already aware than incoming air to air missile is heading its way with enough time for the aircraft to conduct EW, DIRCM, chaff flare countermeasures, etc. You dont even have to use the OLS-35 as a reference but other IRST systems like france which also use long-wave infrared detection. And to pour salt to the wound lets say I decide to pull a stealthflanker and ronny on you that the K-77ME has the same speeds as your theoretical Meteor like missile...... Wouldn't that mean based on the throttle down speeds that missiles be detected at a closer than a farther range?

Coping with what?:crazy: I'm not the one who play the victim card every time I discuss. Look back at the comments on this thread alone, I mainly focus on the technical discussion whereas you start by complain about why I explain too much, then start spam a bunch of derogatory terms, then cry about how you were always banned from other forums:pound:
Take along look at yourself, your tequilashooter account was only banned when you start babbling about 1 user vs all users. If you keep it to the technical discussion, then you won't be banned. For example: hocum shit on US equipment, but his argument is about technical problem so he won't get banned. It doesn't mean what he say is accurate or that you must away be correct to avoid the ban hammer, but don't go off topic, and if you absolutely need to go off topic then it better be about technical discussion rather than a rant about this users, that users. No one actually give a fuck about that. I can go off topic on spacebattles, secretproject, F-16.net...etc and I don't get banned, because I mainly focus on the technical discussion. Which is at least useful or interesting to read for some people. No one want to read about that one time you were banned because the Mod was being mean, the constant 4/chan styles spam doesn't help your case either.
It sounds like you are , if you want to bring past debates than what I am saying is I have a shoulder for you to cry on if you like? I am not the only one using derogatory terms here.
Where did I say it was one user vs all users, if you are going to make up shit than do a better job at it. Space battle is no problem despite other users giving you problems there as it seems and I think you said that neutral forum was biased o_O? my behavior was only bad in the politics section. As for secretprojects as you already know I brought up multiple sources that Russia is pursuing a internal hypersonic air to ground missiles thus a ban for it. Su-57 will do hypersonic air to ground missile tests this year so once Borisov gives a name I gladly talk about that missile project lol. By the way I just noticed that some users even here had to create a separate thread including your username to be on that different thread, old habits die hard dont they :truestory: ?

I actually made myself very clear and have explained myself repeatedly for this same point.
Basically what I mean is that, I don't count these hypothetical mini missiles for SU-57, because they don't exist, their fate are uncertain and there is nothing to discuss about the technical of a non existence missile. If you count them, then it would be logically to take into account SACM and CUDA. But in my comparison I didn't count CUDA and SACM because their fate is uncertain. That why you see my number for internal load of F-35 only add up to 6 instead
Secondly, at least in case of SACM and MSND, we know money being pour in to investigate and study the flexibility of the system because they are program of record, whereas, in case of mini missile for Su-57,we have nothing
1612578133351.png
You still brought it up as an option(so decided to bring up an option loadout for the Su-57) to increased the loadout LMFAO. And you gave a loadout for the Su-57 while I stuck with mine and that wasnt to your liking?
There is also money being poured into klevok-D2, smaller hypersonic air to ground missiles that surpass what the F-35 has. Russia possessed the capabilities of miniature missiles with tor and pantsir so I give it as an option for the Su-57 for its new air to air missile designs. There was no reason for a user to sperg here.

Because there is no public information about the exact frequency coverage of F-35 in GHz, the only information we have is that ASQ-239 cover band 2, band 3, band 4 and after F-35 block 4 it will cover band 5 as well. But there is no information on which frequency these band represent
We know ALR-94 on F-22 cover band 3 and band 4, and wee also know it cover 0.5 GHz to 18 GHz
So we can deduce that ASQ-239 on F-35 which cover band 2, band 3, band 4 will go down to lower frequency.
New avionics are needed or in otherwords new EW systems and none of those are present on the F-35(which do you think will come 1st this or DIRCM?), not even a demonstration like the EW MMICs portrayed for the Su-57. They demonstrate a wider band to conduct missions with 5th gen aircrafts meaning that if the F-35 go so low we have no needs for the EA-18 growler which is portrayed in the back with giant ass pods.

NGJ is an active standoff support jamming system, its purpose is very different from ESM system such as ASQ-239 on F-35. AESA jammer need to be much bigger to have adequate element spacing for electronic beam steering.
Secondly, it isn't like VHF antenna are too big to put on aircraft
NGJ like the EW systems on the F-35 can suppress radio waves, but it is demonstrated for jamming lower frequencies than the F-35s. Even current 2015 pdf has show me different RWRs module frequency coverages and none that I have seen go to low UHF to VHF levels.

But not all race are at 100 meters. What if it is 1000 km race?. Just like not all ramjet missile launch is used against target only 10 km away, what if the target is 200-500 km away?
Secondly, burning fuel quicker doesn't guarantee that you need less volume of fuel, it mean you burn through the fuel faster to generate more thrust. But the total energy generated by that same volume of fuel is the same
If it was a 1000km range than that would mean it does not have burn rate technology to accelerate to the speeds it needs for the scramjet to eventually kick on. If the target is 250-500km range than that leaves more room for the ramjet to cover for burning less fuel than solid fuels maintaining high speeds.
A ferrari with 1/8th the volume of fuel will burn fuel faster to get to 100 meters than a toyota with a full tank for the scramjet to do the rest of the job, which burns fuel less but maintaining high speeds than sold fuels.

No one use RS-24 yars to test Buk M3 or Pansir-s1 because Yars is an ICBM, testing it is a serious issue
Kinzhal is just recently being introduced, so I don't think they are even being tested against S-400or S-500,let alone Buk or Pansir.
You can come back to my previous post to see where the quote come from, boost glider have to glide in atmosphere, so the shorter the range, the faster they go, very similar to a Sabot round but they can maintain their speed much better thanks to the thin air at high altitude
o_O huh? So I take that you do not know if those speeds are official for the AGM-183 because you refused to answer it twice, and I doubt 3rd time will be the charm for you. Kinzhal, YARS and Iskander feature maneuverability through out their flights. Doesn't the PRSM or AGM-183A have maneuverability as well which makes them different from your average ballistic launched missiles? Do you even have a range or altitude height for the agm-183A?
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
164
Likes
204
Country flag
The fact I have never noticed this detail is something I forgot to brought up as well.

1612708872114.png


bottom missile looks like a r-77 which is 3.6 meters, 2nd missile looks like r-74m2 which is 2.93 meters, and top missile is new missile that seems way shorter than r-74m2 Weapons bay length of su-57 gave 4.6 meters estimate lengths and if my intuition is right that new missile has to be under 2.3 meters to make a 10 missile load out option possible, with some spacing and all that. Now I would say there would be no point down sizing this missile if it is to have the same loadout as the k-77M or K-74m2 which I am assuming the shorter length and slightly bigger diameter is to fit in more missiles.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
729
Likes
522
Country flag
Why do you keep sperging out over and over and over again? you even now stating that radar has a longer range than infrared when there are multiple sources that aircraft IRSTs do not even even exceed radars in ranges. Your speaking in acronym soups against hoping to obscure a conversation, what is LRF, radars use triangulation as well, I dont speak sperg, this is why others have a difficult time communicating with you. And if your are saying radar is not effected by weather are you just making it sound better as a choice to be used as MAWs compared to an aircraft that uses radars, UV and infrared coverage?
Firstly,:pound:I'm not sperging, but you are being retarded so I have to explain the same thing over and over and over again. Others don't have difficult time communicating with me, only you do. Because you lack even common senses. It is hard to communicate to you because I would have to teach you something which should be obvious to everyone else such as how to convert area unit or conservation of energy
Secondly, radar don't need to rely on triangulation to measure range because radar measure range by calculate the time it take for their pulse to fly out and reflect back. Infrared system have to rely on triangulation or LRF (laser range finder)
Thirdly, Su-57 and F-35 doesn't rely on its radar to detect air to air missile, Su-57 rely on 101-KSU UV sensor. F-35 rely on AAQ-37 IIR sensor. Yes, their radar can both detect incoming missile in certain case, but that not the main role. Against missiles, an IIR sensor are generally better as missile warner than radar sensor because:
- Missile are hot because of their flumes and their speed. But they have small RCS because of their size.
- Radar can alert enemy of your present while a passive IIR system won't, and this is a major issue with stealth aircraft.
- Because the angular accuracy of radar is dictated by its beam width. The time that a radar need to scan a certain volume of space is inversely proportional to its accuracy. That mean, to compete with infrared system in term of angular accuracy, your radar need very small beam width. But if the radar has small beam width, then it take too long to scan the whole volume and the reaction time suffer. On the other hand, if the beam width is wide, then the angular accuracy is extremely low and the low probably of intercept characteristic is worse. Whereas, starring array infrared system can have wide instantaneous angular coverage and great angular accuracy at the same time



Russia has smaller funding or investments on the Su-57 even they had managed to acquire similar shit to what you are talking about for the F-35. Your telling me that 1.5 trillion is not enough funding?
No, they don't manage to acquire similar shit, not even close.
There are 615 F-35 while there are 10 test and 2 serial su-57 at the moment. And you should check back on what the so called 1.5 trillions really mean

The F-35 states its current IRST is equivalent to the F-16 Sniper XR which operates at the mid-wave infrared spectrum. OLS-35 is uses long wave infrared detection to track cooler targets than mid-wave infrared and at best that is 30km in front and 90kms in back meaning incoming air to air missiles will all be faced first. So the range is now going to be significantly less than this because midwave is for detecting hotter and not cooler targets than long-wave infrared. But at this point radars which are not just the front are already able to track smaller size targets way farther than current long wave infrared systems meaning the Su-57 is already aware than incoming air to air missile is heading its way with enough time for the aircraft to conduct EW, DIRCM, chaff flare countermeasures, etc. You dont even have to use the OLS-35 as a reference but other IRST systems like france which also use long-wave infrared detection. And to pour salt to the wound lets say I decide to pull a stealthflanker and ronny on you that the K-77ME has the same speeds as your theoretical Meteor like missile...... Wouldn't that mean based on the throttle down speeds that missiles be detected at a closer than a farther range?
Firstly, OLS-35 doesn't use long wave infrared, it uses the same mid wave infrared as EOTS.
Secondly, Infrared system are a bit more complex than radar. Able to detect cooler target doesn't necessary mean your detection range is better. Because infrared system sort out target by the contrast with the back ground but everything emit infrared radiation and the cooler the object, the longer the infrared wavelength that it will emit. So while using long wave infrared help you receive signal from cooler missiles/aircraft, you will also get a lot of unwanted signal from the background such as the surface and cloud. You can see the contrast in image below. In the MWIR photo, it is very easy to distinguish the ship from the background because most nature object doesn't emit a lot in MWIR. In the LWIR, it is much harder to distinguish the boat because the sea surface also emit a lot in long wave infrared.





Thirdly, yes, throttle back help reduce flume Infrared signature but Meteor and K-77ME still has more signature than a coasting missile, and even coasting missile can be detected due to air friction created when they cutting through the air at supersonic speed



It sounds like you are , if you want to bring past debates than what I am saying is I have a shoulder for you to cry on if you like? I am not the only one using derogatory terms here.
Where did I say it was one user vs all users, if you are going to make up shit than do a better job at it. Space battle is no problem despite other users giving you problems there as it seems and I think you said that neutral forum was biased o_O? my behavior was only bad in the politics section. As for secretprojects as you already know I brought up multiple sources that Russia is pursuing a internal hypersonic air to ground missiles thus a ban for it. Su-57 will do hypersonic air to ground missile tests this year so once Borisov gives a name I gladly talk about that missile project lol. By the way I just noticed that some users even here had to create a separate thread including your username to be on that different thread, old habits die hard dont they ?
:pound:shoulder to cry on? Look at yourself. You complain about how some forums banned you all the time, in all discussion. I get that it is frustrated to be banned, but honestly. Do you think anyone in here interested in a sob story?. They don't give a fuck and it get old very quickly. And I didn't use derogatory terms until you constantly spam sperg this, sperg that, and over saturate the forum with the 4chan meme
Secondly, there are many pro Russia user in secretproject, pretty much non are banned, it is as free as it get there, so if you are banned there, then you should think about how you post.


You still brought it up as an option(so decided to bring up an option loadout for the Su-57) to increased the loadout LMFAO. And you gave a loadout for the Su-57 while I stuck with mine and that wasnt to your liking?
There is also money being poured into klevok-D2, smaller hypersonic air to ground missiles that surpass what the F-35 has. Russia possessed the capabilities of miniature missiles with tor and pantsir so I give it as an option for the Su-57 for its new air to air missile designs. There was no reason for a user to sperg here.
I didn't brought them as option, I emphasized that I don't count them, because to me , their fate are uncertain. For Kelvok-D2, there is 30-35% chance it get made in future and probably about 0.1% that it make its way onto any jet fighter,


New avionics are needed or in otherwords new EW systems and none of those are present on the F-35(which do you think will come 1st this or DIRCM?), not even a demonstration like the EW MMICs portrayed for the Su-57. They demonstrate a wider band to conduct missions with 5th gen aircrafts meaning that if the F-35 go so low we have no needs for the EA-18 growler which is portrayed in the back with giant ass pods.
No new avionic is needed. Band 2, band 3 and Band 4 are standard band on F-35. and RWR/ELINT system on tactical aircraft such as F-35 is quite different from a support suppress stand off jamming system on EA-18G. They have different role and use for different thing, one doesn't make the other redundant. NGJ is a combination of 3 pods: high band, mid band and low band. The mid band and high band proportion is covered by most self defense jamming pod and aircraft internal jammer, so why do you think there is still a NGJ pod cover that frequency range? :). Because self defense jamming and surpress cover jamming are different



NGJ like the EW systems on the F-35 can suppress radio waves, but it is demonstrated for jamming lower frequencies than the F-35s. Even current 2015 pdf has show me different RWRs module frequency coverages and none that I have seen go to low UHF to VHF levels.
You are confused between the emitter locating function and jamming function. When I talk about the coverage of ASQ-239, I'm talking about the emitter locating function, not the jamming function.


If it was a 1000km range than that would mean it does not have burn rate technology to accelerate to the speeds it needs for the scramjet to eventually kick on. If the target is 250-500km range than that leaves more room for the ramjet to cover for burning less fuel than solid fuels maintaining high speeds.
A ferrari with 1/8th the volume of fuel will burn fuel faster to get to 100 meters than a toyota with a full tank for the scramjet to do the rest of the job, which burns fuel less but maintaining high speeds than sold fuels..
When I talk about 1000 km, I was talking about the maximum missile range, I wasn't talking about booster range.
The point is that, to accelerate a missile to a certain speed, you will need a certain amount of energy. How fast you can burn through your fuel to get this amount of energy doesn't change the total amount of energy you will need.

o_O huh? So I take that you do not know if those speeds are official for the AGM-183 because you refused to answer it twice, and I doubt 3rd time will be the charm for you. Kinzhal, YARS and Iskander feature maneuverability through out their flights. Doesn't the PRSM or AGM-183A have maneuverability as well which makes them different from your average ballistic launched missiles? Do you even have a range or altitude height for the agm-183A?
I didn't refuse to answer it twice, I already explained to you before. Boost glider don't have constant speed, they decelerate as they glide through the atmosphere. Your question is like "what is the temperature of a room" , the only answer is "it depend".
This is the velocity chart of a boost glider. The atmosphere that give it much better agility than ballistic missile will also slow it down by a lot
speed.PNG


YARS by itself is an intercontinental ballistic missile, it climb ways above the atmosphere, so it can't maneuver there (unless you count making some lateral 5-10 m course correction and nose pointing by mini thruster as maneuver), at most you can have it carry warhead that can maneuver on re-entry once it come back to atmosphere. It kinda like this:

Kinzhal is air launched Iskander
Iskander and PRSM are similar, they can maneuver on re-entry, and just after launch while their motor still running. But in mid course, they pretty much doing a fix curve. even side thruster change your course very slightly
Hypersonic boost glider like Avangard, ARRW are very different because they can change the cross course by 500-1000 km thanks to the aerodynamic force, like this:
unnamed.jpg
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
729
Likes
522
Country flag
The fact I have never noticed this detail is something I forgot to brought up as well.

View attachment 77244

bottom missile looks like a r-77 which is 3.6 meters, 2nd missile looks like r-74m2 which is 2.93 meters, and top missile is new missile that seems way shorter than r-74m2 Weapons bay length of su-57 gave 4.6 meters estimate lengths and if my intuition is right that new missile has to be under 2.3 meters to make a 10 missile load out option possible, with some spacing and all that. Now I would say there would be no point down sizing this missile if it is to have the same loadout as the k-77M or K-74m2 which I am assuming the shorter length and slightly bigger diameter is to fit in more missiles.
No. It is just a semi-finished product of the regular R-77 missile.
This is what the production line of R-77 look like,
For example: these are photo of RVV-AE being assembled
R77-3a-b_Vympel.jpg

R77-2-_Vympel.jpg
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
164
Likes
204
Country flag
Time to recollect my past predictions.

1. Su-70 given a air to air role.(witness LMFS with my conversation at key aero)

2. Su-57 given a hypersonic air to ground missile.

3. photonic radar upgrade(RTI in September 2019 saying a multifunctional fighter will receive one in a few years) They are also responsible for the Yakhroma radar operating in 4 different bands, submillimeter radar for drones in 2025 and 10 meter corridor terahertz radar for airports to be tested this year in identifying civilians carrying objects.

4. 8-10 missile configurations.

5. GaN MMIC EW replacements.

3 of these are pending and 2 of them happened to be true. 1. is already a give away so lets identify the next one after this source. Враг и «Гремлин»: новую гиперзвуковую ракету испытают в 2023 году | Статьи | Известия (iz.ru)


The enemy and the Gremlin: a new hypersonic missile will be tested in 2023

Due to the small size of the ammunition, the Su-57 and other aircraft of operational tactical aviation will be able to arm them.

A hypersonic aircraft missile, codenamed Gremlin, will take off in two years: tests are scheduled for 2023. In some documents, the product is called GZUR - hypersonic guided missile. In terms of its dimensions, the Gremlin will be smaller than the previously adopted Kh-47M2 Dagger. Due to its small size, the GZUR can be used not only from the side of heavy bombers and MiG-31 interceptors. Its carriers can be the long-range supersonic missile carrier Tu-22M, as well as fighters Su-57, Su-30SM and Su-35. In fact, the Russian Air Force will receive super-weapons. Indeed, according to experts, it is almost impossible to repel the strike of such a complex with modern air defense systems.

"Product 70"
At the operational mobilization meeting on February 9 this year, the head of the defense department Sergei Shoigu said that it was high-precision hypersonic complexes of various bases that would be used to strengthen the potential of non-nuclear deterrence of Russia. The day before, he held a meeting at which he announced the decision of the General Staff about additional orders for such weapons.

According to the work schedule (at the disposal of Izvestia), the GZUR should enter state joint tests in 2023. According to the documents, the development work (ROC) "Gremlin" started in November 2018. Then the Ministry of Defense signed a contract for the execution of the order with the Tactical Missile Armament Corporation (KTRV).

In the near future, tests of the propulsion system of the complex will begin. In February, JSC "Turaevskoe Machine-Building Design Bureau" Soyuz "(TMKB" Soyuz ") posted a notice (available to Izvestia) about conducting bench firing tests as part of the Gremlin development work of the newest engine for hypersonic missiles, which received the designation" product 70 ".

Also in February, there were reports of tests on the fifth generation fighter Su-57 of functional mass and size models of an unnamed GZUR. The size of the missile allows it to be placed in the inner compartment of the Russian "stealth fighter". Earlier it was reported about plans to use similar ammunition on long-range Tu-22M3 bombers, as well as operational-tactical aircraft.

“Apparently, it was the Gremlin mock-up that was tested on the Su-57,” military expert Dmitry Kornev told Izvestia. - It has long been known about such a development at KTRV, but almost no details about the characteristics and purpose have appeared before. Its feature is its small size, which makes it possible to use these missiles from conventional fighters and non-strategic bombers.


Remember December 2018 was the 1st news report from tass stating internal kinzhal missile which seems to line up with the work of the Gremlin which started in November 2018. Also remember that this is a different GZUR because the other GZUR was tested in May 2018 on a bomber with a 6 meter length. If I get 5 out 5 I will invest in stocks or try my chances at the lottery.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top