as well as the MiG-29/Su-27
F-18
zaslon
next gen
It’ll always be, once you start read the tech documents and have some background you see how terrible their situation was.
Knowing how everything ended up vastly overstated I don’t have high hopes for the zaslon nor any other avionics/radars. Like I did with the saphir 25 radar only to end up worse the apg59 of the phantom which was older and a proper pulse doppler.
If you have any relevant information that would be useful but the signature look of superiority doesn’t look good on a homeless person.
Womp womp
The first version of the Zaslon was really not very good in terms of detecting small targets.However, it did not last long
I have already posted, alot quantitativelyregarding the avionics. Its the same story, atleast a decade lagging. And either more or less equal with french/english systems.
Why don’t you bring relevant info regarding avionics otherwise rather than just trying to stir the pot. I’m just giving a reply on something easily verifyable.
It would be more of homeless claiming grandiose when you can see he’s homeless
It is you who place the porridge…
It does not cancel the world’s first phased array
and OLS on board fighters in any way…
In fact, all this is nonsense in the presence of an automated control system of the air defense forces…
If you do not take into account the F-106 (NORAD)…That is, systems like the Soviet ones have become mandatory in the West since the 2000s.
sure, lets look at the “PORRIDGE” quantitatively rather than just pulling up links
High alt, lookup/same altitude (60N/M =111km) ( 50N.M = 93km)(40N.M = 74km)
High altitude, Lookdown
APG-59 simply has longer detection in lookdown as it has proper pulse doppler and slightly better or equal in look up and it does it using an HPRF waveform rather than an LPRF (one which is terrible with clutter/chaff)
and Saphire 25 has low altitude modes which cuts range CONSIDERBALY, to the 20kms range.
Nice “PORRIDGE” you brought upon
this is the thread for the spaceship if you want to take it there
Phased array its a thing no kidding, faster updates and you can allow a much wider search zone rather than a reduced one as we see on western radars to keep a accurate track files. Yet what about all the details like on the N019/N001 which show serious/ comical flaws that con only be looked by reading the stuff? We don’t know them and we wont till the foxhound is pulled out of service + couple of extra years and we get to check it. So, don’t sing songs yet.
OLS, I think radar is premier to it. IR depends on a lot of stuff sometimes outside your control. Radar is much more reliable.
GCI has always been a thing in the west but never soviet style by the 80s and beyond. Early on yes as we have records of it during the 50s and even 60s early 70s when onboard avionics improved considerably.
Much less “mandatory”, it would be big step backwards in doctrine
I think this quote summarizes your issue entirely. You want to claim these radars are awful and bad in all these many ways as though the US ones are without a single flaw themselves but as you said yourself… it is conjecture until more detailed information is revealed.
We will never know the issues of the American equipment because our propaganda is better and our secrets were not leaked so often.
Nice blind cherry picking, however there’s a difference between arguing between older retired systems with lots of first hand technical information and declassified reports available(or leaked but too old for anyone to care) and newer systems that are STILL in use or just to early for declassification and the only information are what? Books? “Fighter encyclopedias”? Third party documents that quote another third party? Presentations from marketing team which is for shareholders/individuals not involved in the stuff?
I, as it’s quite clear, stay with the older systems we can rely on proper data.
This is the flaw in the misled deceiving idea that you are trying to push. Me talking out of fairytales. I don’t argue with newer stuff for reason I already stated and leads to nowhere. Unlike stuff tllike apg 59/saphire 25 as you saw above. See the difference?
No, you’re still coming from a place where there is information about the deficiencies of the Soviet radar and nothing of the shortcomings and teething issues of the American side. If you’re going to come in here and pretend to discuss capabilities as some sort of facade to run around degrading the Soviet stuff… well, I feel you are being very unproductive with your time and ours.
What kind of radar are we talking about?
I don’t know much about avionics, but what are the “serious/comical flaws” of the N019?
It is well know that it spikes the aircraft own RWR but that is an issue of the Spo-15 as far as I know, not a radar one. Are there other ones?
The information is based on manuals and technical reports, nothing else.
What do you want fairytales? Books? “Fighter encyclopedias”?
And now again trying once again to push and manipulate with a deceiving idea. This time is that manuals and technical documents are clear state propaganda
Woo woo he is pointing out the limitations & performance BY DESIGN BY THE MANUFACTURER of a radar set using manuals and technical documents
Woo woo the other radar doesn’t have the same BY MANUFACTURER DESIGN limitations therefore it’s all clear CIA & state propaganda.
Get serious. It’s getting comical now with what you say. And then you try to set up yourself in a sort of “internet discussion moral” highground with
I feel you are being very unproductive with your time and ours.
What do you want? Early apg 63s by design don’t allow pilot to control PRF unlike soviet radars? Apg66 is limited by design to work in MPRF only giving lower range.
Apg 59
Wooop
Bank beyond 90° and radar drops lock
Woop
Roll too fast and missile may not get datalink updates during the timeframe leading to it looking at a different doppler.
Woop
R27R/ER hail Mary shot at 25-37km
Woop
Fly at low altitudes(<3km) and look for a target under the horizon and radar range drops CONSIDERABLY
Was it tested on the Tu-16?
This is most likely a rocket problem.
120 for H019
What?
It’s was on a tu 22( the old one)
Yep, from what I read missiles made before 1986 was 30°/s and after july 1986 was up to 60°/s but it’s only for the datalink. SAHR remains unaffected.
I’m not talking about the roll stabilizer when it’s searching which is indeed 120°. But ON su 27, it literally read that if it banks more than 90° it automatically drops lock and goes into search
The inertial navigation (INS)only phase between 25-37km. When fired at those ranges. Beyond 37km( 1.5x capture distance) it uses inertial navigation AND Radio Correction. During the INS onoy phase, the missile flies without ANY Radio correction to the distance it captures the target, the seeker is places at a specific azimuth and missile with INS to the interception phase though a sort of adaptive proportional navigation coefficient.
What is the source of this data?
Where was the Tu-22 taken from for the tests?
The Su-27 really has 90 degrees. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the developer overestimated his capabilities. Because initially the technical task was on a different radar
Interception probably or another similar sized target. At high RCS values it ain’t much difference in range due to the 4th root component. 150m² would only give 10% extra range compared to a 100m². 30m² only gives 10% extra range to a 20m² target.
90° max roll on search aswell? Thought 120° but can be checked
The R1 index doesn’t seem to tell you anything. There is nothing in the technical manual for the R-27 rocket about the operation of the INS only up to 37km
I’m not ready to answer right now
