I still don’t get your point. Could you explain it a little more simply/in more detail?
How do the SPO-15’s elevation antennas differ from the +/- 90 degree elevation of the L-150-16M?
The problem is about demonstrated L-150 and L-150-16M. The demonstrated -16M doesn’t have that ‘disk’, so it’s optional and ‘prolonged’. Talking about the ‘disk’ itself - there’s no essential difference in design between SPO-15 and SPO-32.
From the demonstration pictures, L-150 - ‘disk’ and ‘bulb’; L-150-16M - ‘bulb’ and ‘scallop’.
In conclusion, you know, the critical technical progression of RWR is to intercept signals, separate different signal from a mixed channel and give their directions. (With phase/interferometer, more precisely.) The ‘disk’ is just trivial for the system and engineering. If you want, install it.
What civil? Like someone can’t recognize a disk-like shape?
Nope, it’s a rigorous discussion about logic. If you deny classifing the two antennas into same category (which is obvious by appearance and antenna design!) why should two person be classified into a same category - human?
Lmao, bro you were given evidences and proof but you decided to stick to your idea desperatly.
Yeah in exterior design, but internal component and software may be different, and we only have two ways to realy know : leak classified information or “tacticaly acquireing” a SU-30, both of which are not fesable for most of the community.
The other thing that makes me belive that this is rage bait is that not only you sticked to your argument ignoring anything we had to say on the matter, you resulted to ad hominen argument when you saw that constantly saying the same thing was not going to change anyone opinion, which is a typical response when someone does not have concrete argument against someone else. I did not reported you nor replied because i belive i am a decent human being and i think i am above such lowliness but i strongly advise you to stop your bigotry or i might respond and let me just tell you that based on your user name i could make assumption and make statment that one could call offensive and you may not like that. So i am going to make a proposition : you stop insulting my mother and i wont do anything ( not even ask for appologies). Continue and this will be escalated to the mod. You can chose to act like grown up adult or you can act like an immature child. It is up to you Jamail.
1 Like
given evidences
I gave two evidence:
- The statement about ‘±30degs’ limit in document does not concretly stand for ‘detection’ but ‘azimuth aangular measurement’.
2.The ‘disk’ antenna is a planar spiral antenna, with a basically identical design between SPO-15 and SPO-32.
Yeah in exterior design, but internal component and software may be different, and we only have two ways to realy know : leak classified information or “tacticaly acquireing” a SU-30, both of which are not fesable for most of the community.
The characteristic of antenna is determined by it’s ‘exterior’ design. Even more, It is an exterior design. Just like you can check a plate is a planar slotted antenna, or a electronic scanned antenna, everything is fixed within it’s shape, appearance or something like that.
let me just tell you that based on your user name i could make assumption and make statment that one could call offensive and you may not like that.
I guess you mean religious or ethical? lol, sound strange, but it’s actually referred to anime.)))
edit: I haven’t check the L-150-16M before this discussion, but now I believe that for every kind of antenna appeared in SPO-32 and it’s modification, you can find it’s ‘predecessor’ in SPO-15.
Irl no, in game somewhere around that.
The statement about ‘±30degs’ limit in document does not concretly stand for ‘detection’ but ‘azimuth aangular measurement’.
just curious but doesn’t this flat out say it’s “sector of view” ie of detection is ±30?
(for if it matters, 150-30SM is also ±30, but I haven’t been paying much attention to whatever this argument is about)
1 Like
azimuth angular measurement is not ±30… that would be horrendous. it varies depending on frequency band and sector. It’s more like ±7.5 at its worst
Let me make myself clear: The statement about ‘±30degs’ limit (of elevation) in document does not concretly stand for (the area availiable for) ‘detection’ (in elevation) but (the area availiable for) ‘azimuth angular measurement’ (in elevation).
What you find in chart is the error in azimuth angular measurement.
Check my replies to other guys.
good day to ya, sir, may i know from where this info comes from as i’m tryin to make a bug report on additional L-150 coverage for Su-30sm2.
Краткое описание выполненных работ, технологий
«Разработка станции непосредственной радиотехнической разведки (СНРТР) с
функциями управления пассивными радиолокационными головками
самонаведения (ПРГС) противорадиолокационных ракет (ПРР) на самолётах
фронтовой авиации»
Thank you very much =)
Is it possible for a RWR to see the exact azimuth direction without increasing the number of antennas OR significantly losing signal power?
Amplitude comparison RWRs typically use broadband cavity-backed spiral antenna elements
1 Like
As far as I know most RWRs do have many antennas. For example the British ARI 18223 and ARI 18228 are installed as one forward looking and one rearward looking RF head on the aircraft (see example image below). But each RF head contains 6 separate aerials (meaning coverage is provided by 12 aerials in total).
I doubt this. To achieve ±90 degrees in elevation, three antennas are needed for each azimuth sector.
That’s an awful lot, something that’s definitely not visible on most aircraft.
Here’s the diagram, there are 6 antenna’s in each RF Head. ARI 18228 was an early RWR so there are three pairs of antennas, one pair for each frequency band. And each antenna in a pair is angle to the left or right. With two RF heads this gave the system 360° azimuth coverage, but limited elevation coverage.
Spoiler
That’s perfectly clear to me, yes. The problem is that to get more than 30 degrees of elevation, you need to copy this configuration twice more for each block.
I don’t see any aircraft with this configuration, although there are already several aircraft in the game with 360-degree RVR.
I suspect they have simplified antennas at the top and bottom, like the SPO-15, but they just omit this detail in the brochures.
As far as I understand, we don’t have detailed data on Western RVRs that would clearly indicate whether precise azimuth detection and target type identification are achieved at elevation angles of ±45, 60, or 90 degrees.