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.
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.
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
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.
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
Its missing the ins only phase, ingame we only have SAHR and INS+Radio Correction phases
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
That Dz is the seekers capture distance, it says 25km for an “average” target. But we know its 3m² as its the seeker range.
It’s also gives 40km and 12km for “big” and “small” respectively. Do the math and it adds to 20m² for big and 0.16m² target.
On another manual it states that it is chosen by the pilot
Разрешенные дальности захвата РГС составляют: при пуске по бомбардировщикам — 40 км, по истребителям — 25 км, по крылатым ракетам — 12 км. Тип атакуемой цели устанавливается летчиком вручную по информации с НАСУ с помощью рукоятки БАЗА (Б, С или М).
The permitted ranges of capture of the CSG are: at launch for bombers — 40 km, for fighters — 25 km, for cruise missiles — 12 km. The type of target to be attacked is set manually by the pilot according to information from the NASU using the BASE handle (B, C or M).
And bombers, 20m² is good for a bomber front aspect
This is the target capture range of the missile head. And if the missile is launched from the Su-30 at 90 km. You will also say that the INS only works at 37km?
No, if it is launched beyond 1.5x the capture distance chosen by the pilot, big, average, small it uses the known INS+Radio correction till the distance between the target and the missile is that captured distance, 25km. Though if you go further down the section I read 0.8x capture distance, but I have a thing this is FOR the calculation of the adaptive PN coefficient of either INS or INS+Radio Correction.
The problem on the game is that the radar is limited on locking at 70km for the mig 29 and 80km for the su27. Which shouldn’t be the case, only at 70% of maximum detection range.
IF you go for the passage is for the seeker 100%. I don’t remember seeing fuse on it. Capture range is the capture range. IF you go by 1/3rd it would mean that it switches from INS+Radio correction to SAHR till 8km. Doesn’t add up with the passages
Yes… Just completely ignore the aircraft that disproves your claim entirely. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand and cry that it beats any eastern system by decades as well, lmao
