Novator K-100 (AWACS killer)

[paritosh]

Well I just guessed because they are of different origins? Something about the guidance or something. Is the AIM-120 so easy to jam? Considering that it has Home-On-Jam capability it seems really surprising.

yes..it is supposed to be not easy to jam...switching from active to passive...but going passive is not all that good for a missile which has a BVR target...
since the Aim-120 has an active seeker....it emits it's own radiation and sees the target through the reflected 'echo'...now a target can jam the aim-120 by canceling out the incident radiation from the missile by producing an opposite radiation of it's own...
the aim 120's home-on-jam capability makes the seeker of the aim-120 to jump from the active mode to the passive mode(active-throws out radiation of it's own...passive-seeks radiation of the target without producing it's own radiation)...now if the switch occurs very early into it's flight against(because of the target a/c using a strong jammer)....the missile flies in the passive mode...now if a good software were to be on the target a/c as well(the EW suite on modern a/c is much better than that nowadays) the target a/c's EW suite would judge from the sudden fall in the incident radiation, a switch to passive mode...and hence it will switch too...not to a fully passive mode but a 'sleep' mode...wherein the a/c's radar's Tx intensity is reduced so that the passive seeker of the missile(which switched from active to passive at a BVR range) would find it difficult to guide the missile to the target plane....

 

[paritosh]

Really?

I doubt you understand what you copied/pasted from wherever it came from.

First...the receive path use individual per element (slot) low noise GaAs uses receiver chips, providing them with the sidelobe and sensitivity advantages of the AESA, enhancing its range and jam resistance.

Second...US, Israelis and EU would not provide access to the GaAs power transistor technology needed to build a genuine AESA.

So it is implied here that the transmit side of the module is different than the receive side.

WRONG...!!!

Welcome - Microwave design articles, applications, and high-frequency design techniques for microwave and wireless engineer

Passive ESA is a natural first design in an ESA system. The problem with evolving a PESA system into an AESA system is the fine grain control process on the transmit cycle of the module, nothing to do with its construction. Basically...If you have a T/R module, you have in hand the base foundation of an AESA antenna. Your problems, if any, lies downstream in the system.

The only advantage a PESA system can have, not inherently have, is power output, and like the classical dish antenna, output power is dependent upon antenna size. So a larger AESA antenna will outpower a smaller PESA. Else an AESA antenna and related system is far superior in multitasking; target related issues such as acquisition, tracking and targeting; communication and even ECM. An AESA antenna using subarray partitioning, and I have posted that information elsewhere here, using different frequencies can produce superior target resolutions than a PESA no matter what the target is doing. Without fine grain control subsystems like power, cooling and softwares, all items the Russians are inferior to US, a PESA system is the limit.

And why the hell are we obliged to give anything to the Russians? Quit making sorry excuses for the Russians and the Chinese for their backwardness.

An AESA has a composite T/R has no mechanical parts...but not the PESA....the Bars m and the Irbis are hybrid PESAs...I have never claimed that any PESA is better than an AESA...it can never be...the PESA is not responsive enough...it's target resolution is not as good as an AESA's...it needs a transmission time and a Rx time in the pusle duty cycle...whereas the AESA transmits and recieves at the same time...correct me if I am wrong here...

while what started the discussion was the claim that the Bars/irbis can detect VLOs...and yes they can...with their massive power outputs..albeit at a shorter range...

"output power is dependent upon antenna size."
it's not just about the output power...
the a/c radar has different power requirements for different functions...many times the power output is compensated by factors like the beam-width and the beam type...a pencil beam for example would have a high forward gain but a narrow search corridor...a fan beam would have a low forward gain but a wide search corridor...
now while searchin or while target acquisition...the best beam would be a fan beam or an electronically steered pencil beam(phase shifting gives electronic steer)

"Quit making sorry excuses for the Russians and the Chinese for their backwardness."
I don't care about the Chinese...but the Ruskies have an AESA radar...the phazotron if I am not mistaken...

 

[gambit]

An AESA has a composite T/R has no mechanical parts...but not the PESA....the Bars m and the Irbis are hybrid PESAs...

Stop...Please...A Passive Elect Scan Array, just like an Active Elec Scan Array, has no moving parts. Notice I say 'array' and not 'antenna'. Any antenna can or does not have gimbal sets to have mechanical sweeps, including Elec Scan array antennas. An ESA antenna can also have gimbal sets to increase its sweep angles. But the implication that a T/R module has moving parts is sheer nonsense, passive or not.

whereas the AESA transmits and recieves at the same time...correct me if I am wrong here...

An individual T/R module cannot perform both functions at the same time. However, under subarray partitionings, where the entire antenna is magically turned into many smaller antennas, the antenna itself can perform both functions. Our AESA antenna can create up to nine smaller antennas with different freqs and modes. A Passive ESA antenna can only perform one function and at one freq at any moment.

while what started the discussion was the claim that the Bars/irbis can detect VLOs...and yes they can...with their massive power outputs..albeit at a shorter range...

A very dubious claim.

 

[gambit]

well Russians dont follow that Peter(i hope thats what they call it)model of stealth reduces RCS. soviets rejected the idea of airframe shaping and RAM methods of stealth because they found it vulnerable to their radar systems which probably explains how a f117 got shot down by a late 1950s missile (if you ignore 1000s of rubbish excuses, no offense ok)

The Russians, and their gullible clientele, can reject shaping as a legitimate RCS reduction measure if they want. Funny that if whatever they got was so effective against the now retired F-117 back in Yugslavia, it should have been ten times more effective against 'non-stealth' aircrafts. And yet out of about 21,000 sorties NATO flew, including 60 B-2 sorties straight from the US, only TWO aircrafts got shot down: an F-117 and an F-16.

If whatever the Serbs did was so good, it should have been replicable, even out in the field. Or should we say especially out in the field. After all, the modifications, if so happened, was done in the field, correct? But TWO out of 21,000 sorties? So either these 'modification' was a lie, which in my opinion it was a lie, or Zoltan Dani did performed some modifications but nothing worked but he got lucky nonetheless. We who are logically minded call this method 'spray and pray'.

Looks like it is not US who have to come up with those '1000s of rubbish excuses', eh? TWO out of 21,000 sorties is not a combat record to boast about. Looks like those who believe in Zoltan Dani's tall tale will have to come up with at least 21,000 'rubbish excuses' to me. Hope you do not get carpel tunnel in typing up those excuses.

 

[paritosh]

An individual T/R module cannot perform both functions at the same time. However, under subarray partitionings, where the entire antenna is magically turned into many smaller antennas, the antenna itself can perform both functions. Our AESA antenna can create up to nine smaller antennas with different freqs and modes. A Passive ESA antenna can only perform one function and at one freq at any moment.

I did not know about the 9 antenna elements part...but I did not differ from the rest.

A very dubious claim.

is it?
is it invisible to the radar?
a VLO is observable at shorter ranges...
you are considering only the RCS...which is not sensible...the transmitted power of the radar is an important factor also...and so is the wavelength of the transmitted beam..and so is the detection range...

 

[Super Falcon]

does this awacs killer made by china

 

[Super Falcon]

no it is from russia it has range from 300 to 400 which is range of any awacs how can it hot any awacs when awacs already have that fighter jet in its radar

 

[ironman]

Hope this will clear up some doubts here..

Pictures courtesy Prasun K Sengupta

 

[gambit]

I will like to know Gambits View on this

Soitenly...Soitenly...

According to the articel by Paritosh

Most AIM-120 AMRAAM kills to date have involved 1980s export variants of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, with mediocre electronic warfare fit and often inoperative systems. These are not representative targets in the current Pacific Rim environment.

Not our fault we meet only mediocre opponents.

The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular.

That would make those export variants of the MIG-29 Fucrup far less than mediocre, natch?

Test range trials have resulted in stated kill probabilities of 85 percent out of 214 launches for the AIM-120C variant. Combat statistics for all three variants are less stellar, amounting to, according to US sources, ten kills (including a friendly fire incident against a UH-60) of which six were genuine BVR shots, for the expenditure of just over a dozen AIM-120 rounds. The important parameter is that every single target was not equipped with a modern defensive electronic warfare package and therefore not representative of a state-of-the-art Flanker in a modern BVR engagement. Against such "soft" targets the AIM-120 has displayed a kill probability of less than 50 percent.

It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions

Then I would say that it is equally an 'open question' on if the Flanksteak is as 'state-of-the-art' as claimed when there is this...

Fly MiG and Sukhoi Fighter Jets in Moscow!

If Russia is so strapped for cash that it has to give out tourist rides for its supposedly 'top of the line' fighters, what does that say about the status of its R/D for these P-o-S aircrafts?

Digital Radio Freq Memory (DRFM) against a frequency agile monopulse air-air missile from a country that wields at least two 'stealth' platforms? Please...Give me a break...I explained on another discussion on how a monopulse radar can be deceived, not necessarily jammed. Look it up.

What a DRFM system does is analyze an incoming hostile pulse and create a false 'echo'. The system also slightly delay the transmission of this false 'echo' to deceive, not jam, the hostile radar into believing the target is at a different location. The difference is crucial. Digital Radio Freq Memory is a deception ECM tactic, not a brute force 'jamming' one as it does feed the hostile radar with target information, just not very accurate information. Brute force jamming is noise jamming where the ECM system saturate a certain freq and/or bandwidth with nothing but junk.

But for for a DRFM system going up against a frequency agile monopulse equipped air-air missile like the AIM-120D, the system must be broadband capable as its real-time adaptive capability must be picosecond response level. Because the system cannot assume that the hostile it meet has so-and-so capabilities, it must assume the worst hence it cannot afford to 'forget' or discard any processed freq lest the hostile radar return to that freq. Not only is freq important but also amplitude modulation if it is used by the hostile radar. Storage is crucial. So is this 'state-of-the-art' Flanksteak using DSP or FPGA in its real-time processing? Either? Then it is 'toast' as we Americans say. The older 120 was already successful against both DSP and FPGA equipped deception tactics. May be not to %100, but enough to establish an enviable combat record. There is a third hardware and I know how the D get around that.

Do not waste your blood sugar asking what is that third piece of hardware tactic...You will get this...

Nothing is perfect and the 120 series does not claim exception to that rule, but given the obvious technological disadvantages the Russians currently have against US, I have no problems accepting similar criticisms about the 120D if its performance is...er...less than spectacular.

 

[Patriot]

Gambit, What's your opinion about Europeon/French Radars..are they good enough and better then russians/ch..?

 

[Shiji]

If the 120 is so " bad" then why use it on the worlds most expensive and best aircraft? Why not make a new range of BVRAAMs?

 

[gambit]

Gambit, What's your opinion about Europeon/French Radars..are they good enough and better then russians/ch..?

Better.

I admit to taking gratuitous shots at Russian and Chinese hardwares, but as far as Russian stuff goes, I also admit they do make physically hardy equipments and this traces back to when we took apart the MIG-25 when Belenko defected to the West in Japan. Their avionics are physically more robust than ours to facilitate rapid deployments. Too bad their organizational structure did not match what their equipments were designed to do.

That said...Their avionics, and basically electronics for that matter, are not as sophisticated as ours. The plus side for that is their avionics are more robust out in the field. The down side to our avionics for being more sophisticated and capable is that ours require more support. Each side has its own philosophy. The Soviets then and the Russians now are still behind US and Europe in terms of fine grain controls in everything, from voltage measurements in their flight control systems to surface deflection rates to feedbacks of those rates. Voltages were not as clean as ours then and I wager only some improvements now.

For example...We may progressively measure stick transducer movements towards the thousandths in our digital fly-by-wire FLCS while they do theirs constantly in tenths in an electro/mechanical system. The result is more work for the pilot as he must induce more stick movement than his American counterpart to execute the same rate of a maneuver. The inside of our pitot-static system, from pitot probes to manifolds, are smooth. Theirs I can feel surface irregularities with my fingertips. So there is an increase in raw air data difference between ours and theirs, guess whose calculated pitot-static data is going to be more accurate? Radar and even engines rely on accurate pitot-static air data. It is important for twin engines as you do not want asymmetric thrust at any throttle settings. All of these, the less the pilot knows about them and how to deal with them, IF he must deal with them, the better a fighter he will be when the time call because he does not have to parcel out a certain amount of attention on flying the aircraft and instead focus all of his attention on his opponent and how to defeat him.

Constant Peg

For more than a decade, until just before the November 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, a secret Air Force aggressor unit flew Soviet MiGs in more than 15,000 sorties against US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots.

What people do not understand is that we do not belong in the sky. Birds and bats are. Not humans. So if we are going to be flying for any reason, it is better to have the hardwares be as autonomous in their functions as possible. Technology for the pilot is a weakness for the Soviets. After the collapse of the Soviets, former Soviet satellites called US up for a shopping spree, giving US even more knowledge of how Soviet equipments evolve over time. People here extoll Soviets-Russian equipments over ours out of ignorance and that is not being mean about it. They just need a healthy dose of reality.

 

[Arsalan]

Whats the NEWS on PAF acquiring the FT-2000? Or is that just another of Internets myths?

it have not materialized as yet but neither have it been cancled. pakitan military still is bound to ge Ft2000 and SPADA for its land based anti air system,,

regards!

 

[democracyspeaks]

Going slightly off topic, been reading about plasma stealth generators. if true & working on fighter aircrafts, then right now the US has no answer to the russians.

Will Plasma Revolutionize Aircraft Design
Air-Attack.com :: Plasma Stealth Factsheet

 

[gambit]

Going slightly off topic, been reading about plasma stealth generators. if true & working on fighter aircrafts, then right now the US has no answer to the russians.

Will Plasma Revolutionize Aircraft Design
Air-Attack.com :: Plasma Stealth Factsheet

What is there to 'answer' when the Russians are no more ahead than US in the exploitation of plasma in aviation? Do not place so much emphasis on verbal claims, which the Russians are quite good at publicizing them. Focus on deployment of which neither US nor Russia is out of the laboratory stage.