hes doesnt know that 150b and 900b defense budget is not the same number by quite a lot
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
irbis is much bigger than byelka tbf
antenna =/= radar
antenna is only a single component of a radar
it very much does make sense when you consider the number of other power intensive systems mounted to su57 and the fact that it is a smaller radar
The difference is like 200 radiating elements tho
And antenna still requires cooling
Modern GaAs X band TRMs can easily withstand 10 - 15 watts peak these days, even that translates to 15kw peak minimum
And these smaller intensive systems dont have to be commited fully all the times
And the difference isnt that major either, it doesnt make sense for peak power to literally become half with like difference of 1500 and 1700 radiating elements
1 Like
yes, and that is mentioned as a different system otherwise “provision of sufficient energy and cooling of the front radar antenna” wouldnt make sense as it indicates that the antenna is provided with external cooling
with what cooling, in what environment, and what is the affect on service life?
that is an absolutely useless statement
its an almost 15% higher element count
and yet many of them are intended to operate concurrently with the main radar antenna, eg the supplementary radars and MAW systems
and if you read the source thats not the problem, the problem is supplying power and cooling, which makes sense given the number of power intensive systems located in the nose of the aircraft
None of those matters in this situation
Which causes a 50% difference in peak power? Shocking.
Which isnt particularly a problem?
Even older al31 with gp-25 generators generate 60kva per engine, while it would be quite neck to neck with that al41 uses newer generators with a much higher output.
The problem literally said to be fixed later on…
Keep in mind this is said for a old protoype
Even zhuk ae, the dogshit phazatron radar does 10watt per trm peak, with 11kw on byelka that would translate to around 7 watts per trm, makes 0 sense.
Ok we took it wrong…
11kw is what the antenna consumes, NOT what it outputs…
Then theres a thing called duty cycle, its around 0.25 (means the radar is emitting for 1/4th time its getting power, 0.25 is usually for hprf and peak power, the highest going around 0.5)
Then theres also effeciency of the element, around 0.35
So 11*0.35 = 3.85 kw output if its continously emitting by the antenna
3.85/1550~ (trm) = 2.4 watts per trm emitted (avg)
Now with 0.25 duty cycle (mig29 radar duty cycle for hrpf is around 0.2)
2.4/0.25 = 9.6watt output per trm peak.
9.6*1550 = 14.88kw peak
Now that was a older figure, we know each trm outputs 5 watts average emitted, as sent by that su57 guy, so the peak power would be around double. But 30kw is a stupidly high amount, that 5w avg per trm is prob a incorrect source.
Thats a older iteration of byelka, there has been changes on it later, as said in the except, but even then its still minimum 15kw peak with that old prototype, would expect it to be rn around 20kw~
2 Likes
this math seems off as it somehow implies that the radar can emit more power than it consumes
it is also assuming peak power is a 100% duty cycle which is not a good assumption
It assumes peak power is 25% duty cycle, hence divided by 0.25.
Regarding the output, it seems so because the radar is only emitting 1/4th the time it receives power, note that its kW not kWh
What could be off the the module effeciency and prob duty cycle, but i have tried to keep it close to usual AESA benchmarks
Point is we were assuming wrong that 11kw is output of byelka, which is actually the input
1 Like