Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
This is from the instruction manual?
Sort of, explains the peculiarities of the radar you might encounter inflight. From false targets, breaklocks, iff response despite no target detection, FLOOD mode during sparrow launch, a max ranging capability(under 160N.M). And data can be verified on the -34(weapons delivery manual).
And again, being all digital allows alot more stuff to be done, like alot more. CFAR, noise estimates during search, windowing( look up SNR of windowing effect on FFT, pretty nice).
During acquisition phase, also windowed. SNR is increased. 2 seperate estimated of noise are made for the detection threshold, AGC, post detect integration etc
And this is from the PSP update(1979) before the MSIP(1985)(TWS, NCTR, RGH etc) which made alot more capable.
Specifically, this data is from which document?
Phenomenal apg63
So this is not an official book.In general, you can write any nonsense there
It is. All the alot of the information regarding modes, scope and functionality you can confirm it along with some values given on the -34, armament handbook, and PSP specification doc, and also simply radar knowledge.
It just you being dismissive bc you assume if soviet plane can’t do it therefore american can’t as yefim gordon said it similar in performance. You were probably using the soviet book for range values lmao.
Its still an official booklet written by HUGHES given to aircrew-and maintenance personnel.
There’s something called cross referencing? Familiar with it?
Your statement is not true for the F-15 I am using an official document
But the radar charcteristics that you describe looks like a fairy tale
YOU ARE IN DENIAL AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING HAHA!
You don’t even know what’s inside the FLIGHT MANUAL! I repeat, the FLIGHT MANUAL. Then you proceed to say radar/modes/functionality is wrong and its a complete fairy tale based on something is not even covered in that manual.
Get real
You can’t even download that manual on there lmao. I bet you didn’t even skim through it, and possibly don’t even have access it
You can download it, paste the download link in a new tab.
For some reason, filefactory links work fine when pasted in a new tab.
Facepalm
Don’t worry, had it already. It’s due a safety thing I think, it won’t let me in explorer, firefox nor chrome, I don’t remember how I got it in first place
So, did you at least skim through it to see what you said is incorrect?
I gave him as an example, I’m not at home right now and I don’t have to drip in a bunch of books.
Now you change the story to it was just an example? You said it was a false statement as you were using that official document
His explanation makes sense as to why he posted the link he did, no need to attack that point specifically. He told you where he was getting his information was the manual… instead of acknowledging the validity of his argument you’re attacking a mistake he’s now since explained?
If this is how the argument is gonna continue I’d advise we simply stop it here. It is evident the tech moderators have the necessary data to model the radar… so why isn’t it modeled correctly?
There is nothing in this manual about the radar, I have it on paper at home. For radar information you need to reach for the Weapon manual or for special articles on radar.
And he explained that was what he was referencing, clarifying that he linked the wrong manual from his phone as he is not home. So now that the confusion is sorted, can we continue the discussion?