The main problem there is the irst is fully reflecting, when not in use it rotates and is covered in a thick layer of RAM, the creator of the sim redid the sim considering ram over irst and its housing.
Here is the result
Its less but there are around 40+ of them now, serially
And 12 prototypes (2 static)
1 Like
There are combat coated Raptors and Raptors for development, training and air shows.
3 Likes
it was a simple joke. did it get to your nerve or what ?
cant have little fun in the world no more
1 Like
So it really doesnt matter its still current Russian tech VS 40 yr old US tech and its just Slightly better? Lol
No, it didn’t get on my nerves. People have posted that picture multiple times, implying that represents a combat ready F22.
1 Like
the whole point of the picture was that stealth like f22 require more maintenace and cost.
and if not treated well can be bad or break like the picture ( sometime even a small bird strike can cause the plane to be non-combat active service )
1 Like
its in the shiny part its hard to see but its on that last page, youll see the very visible kW and just before it is a 11
Need red circles and arrows :p
All 42 of them
hes doesnt know that 150b and 900b defense budget is not the same number by quite a lot
1 Like
Ok i was seeing some other pic mb
It just says consumes 11kw, nothing about peak power, cooling and processing on addition to the average 7.7kw can take that much too
And even then it says the problems were gradually overcome
If a component consumes x amount of power, it’s the the power over time, so avarage. A jackhammer for example spikes in power, they only consume a couple of kilowatts but during short moments, their peak power goes up to dozens of kilowatts.
It is not peak power, when a component or system consumes x amount power, it’s the avarage.
Yeah what i said…
thats not how that works
power is already over time (energy over time)
you dont design a power supply for an integrated power demand, a power supply and surrounding systems need to be able to provide and manage the peak power
the only thing you can roughly get away with designing around integrated/average power demand is heat dissipation, but even that can be iffy depending on the system
you also ignored the fact that average power for a radar like this isnt really a defined thing because it depends heavily on operating mode and many other factors
hence why the commonly referenced measure is peak power, because it is what is designed around and is much better defined (like really, try find any source on a reasonably modern fighter radar that gives an “average power”)
That 11kw figure is likely considering cooling too, no specifically said peak power.
It doesnt make sense for irbis to be 5kw avg and 20kw peak while byelka is 7.7kw avg and “11kw peak”.
it is explicitly not considering cooling and maybe not including processing
“The antenna weights 240kg, consumes 11kW of energy, and is water cooled”
that implies that the antenna alone has a peak power of 11kW not the entire installation (reasoning for peak power above)
Literally states cooling there too, consumes counts all the subsystems with that too, which includes cooling.
And it doesnt specify “peak output” again, and it doesnt make sense either that irbis does 5kw avg and 20kw peak while byelka does 7.7kw avg and 11 peak
And those values are clearly older, its said to be “fixed” later on