Russia experts estimate F-22 RCS at 0.3 m^2 and Su-57 RCS at 0.35 m^2. Fairly realistic numbers.

[nahtanbob]

When it comes to radars and stuff, nobody really knows. But it doesn't matter if the Russians end up with something that's a generation ahead.

For example, if American GaAs is better than Russian GaAs, this difference won't matter if the Russians skipped GaAs and are using GaN instead. Then it's the Americans who are behind.

The Su-57 variant of most interest is expected to become fully operational only in 2024-25.

Name a single Russian semiconductor company or semiconductor equipment company

 

[randomradio]

Name a single Russian semiconductor company or semiconductor equipment company

http://mikron.ru/en/

But just a reminder. Semiconductor capability for military use is very different from civilian use. For military, the facilities are very small and work on niche technologies which never gets out in the open, while civilian facilities are typically large and made for economies of scale.

Intel may be a good company in the civilian domain making $200-$2,000 processors with 100 million processors made every year in facilities the size of many football fields, but Russia or China could be making a much more advanced chip than Intel's best chip using more exotic materials that costs $20,000 instead, but they plan on making only about 2000 of them throughout their life for 200 PAK FA/J-20, which means they will need a small facility no bigger than a football field.

Electronics in the military is like making exotic cars. It's made for a very particular purpose and then it ends after a small production run.

Generally, stuff like that is custom made specific to a project using FPGAs, or you can even buy COTS, like from Intel. For example, the Indians, Chinese, Russians, French, Americans etc use COTS for mission computers, typically PowerPC. Whereas radar tranceivers are custom made, and in small quantities. There really is no way of saying who is better due to all the secrecy surrounding this.

 

[gambit]

But in the Rafale and F-22 dog fight, or any other similar dog fights, the main idea is to keep it as real as possible.

You have no proof of this. Was the ROE published? Reviewed and confirmed by whom?

The problem is you are linking irrelevant stuff into this, as usual. Typical strawman arguments.

What I bring is real life experience to prove to the readers that you do not know what you are talking about.

It's you who do not understand in what conditions LPI works against Spectra. AC against LPI has little to do with frequency hopping or short bursts and purely dependent on location of the threat radar. Spectra can localise a target within 0.1deg, which is good enough to maintain stealth. So even if the Rafale cannot detect the F-22 using radar, it's killing all the X band signals around it anyway. It doesn't matter how short the burst is or if there is no continuity in the signal, because Spectra doesn't sample the threat signal. Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise also does nothing. If it's X band, it's dead.

Even if 1 radar releases 100 unique signals in a second, Spectra will simply treat it as 100 unique signals from 100 unique radars all located in just one place. So LPI doesn't defeat Spectra. The only real way to defeat ACT is by saturating it.

This is utter bullshit. It is clear by now that you do not know how LPI works in the first place.

A low probability of intercept (LPI) signal spreads an estimated sum of a burst over different freqs and amplitude, in other words, a 'normal' transmission for any typical radar is broken up into many smaller transmissions with different pulse characteristics.

This is what a typical BASIC radar transmission looks like...

This is an example of a complex transmission...

Each pulse have different characteristics in terms of freq and amplitude, which are much lower than the typical transmission.

This is the sampling that SPECRAT MUST perform.

In any ECM, including SPECRAT, amplitude is the first filter. Without this filter, the ECM system would end up responding to every signal, from TV to radio to cell phone to satellites to even cosmic background radiation. SPECRAT cannot afford to counteract against these signals. But LPI transmissions are buried within these background signals.

MOD EDIT: No personal insults

 

[nahtanbob]

http://mikron.ru/en/

But just a reminder. Semiconductor capability for military use is very different from civilian use. For military, the facilities are very small and work on niche technologies which never gets out in the open, while civilian facilities are typically large and made for economies of scale.

Intel may be a good company in the civilian domain making $200-$2,000 processors with 100 million processors made every year in facilities the size of many football fields, but Russia or China could be making a much more advanced chip than Intel's best chip using more exotic materials that costs $20,000 instead, but they plan on making only about 2000 of them throughout their life for 200 PAK FA/J-20, which means they will need a small facility no bigger than a football field.

Electronics in the military is like making exotic cars. It's made for a very particular purpose and then it ends after a small production run.

Generally, stuff like that is custom made specific to a project using FPGAs, or you can even buy COTS, like from Intel. For example, the Indians, Chinese, Russians, French, Americans etc use COTS for mission computers, typically PowerPC. Whereas radar tranceivers are custom made, and in small quantities. There really is no way of saying who is better due to all the secrecy surrounding this.

I get your point - Russia has enough technical talent

you need state of the art equipment to fabricate those exotic semiconductors
russia has limited or no capability to make state of the art exotic semiconductors
they have trailed America during the cold war

look at Russian AWACS, electronic warfare systems. compare it to American counterparts

 

[gambit]

http://mikron.ru/en/

But just a reminder. Semiconductor capability for military use is very different from civilian use. For military, the facilities are very small and work on niche technologies which never gets out in the open, while civilian facilities are typically large and made for economies of scale.

Intel may be a good company in the civilian domain making $200-$2,000 processors with 100 million processors made every year in facilities the size of many football fields, but Russia or China could be making a much more advanced chip than Intel's best chip using more exotic materials that costs $20,000 instead, but they plan on making only about 2000 of them throughout their life for 200 PAK FA/J-20, which means they will need a small facility no bigger than a football field.

Electronics in the military is like making exotic cars. It's made for a very particular purpose and then it ends after a small production run.

Generally, stuff like that is custom made specific to a project using FPGAs, or you can even buy COTS, like from Intel. For example, the Indians, Chinese, Russians, French, Americans etc use COTS for mission computers, typically PowerPC. Whereas radar tranceivers are custom made, and in small quantities. There really is no way of saying who is better due to all the secrecy surrounding this.

More bullshit from you.

Most -- not all -- electronics destined for military use are MILSPEC-ed at the packaging level. For example...

https://www.masterbond.com/industrial-applications/military-electronics

These high performance bonding, sealing, coating, potting/encapsulation materials feature the mechanical, electrical, thermal, chemical resistant capabilities to operate reliably in marine, airborne and ground-based environments.

Take DRAM for example.

At the manufacturer's level, a diversion line of a standard production line is created. DRAM dies that are diverted is encapsulated with extra protection against physical and EM stresses. The individual dies themselves are no different than that of the commercial line.

I get your point - Russia has enough technical talent

you need state of the art equipment to fabricate those exotic semiconductors
russia has limited or no capability to make state of the art exotic semiconductors
they have trailed America during the cold war

look at Russian AWACS, electronic warfare systems. compare it to American counterparts

He is BS-ing you. There are very few exotic semiconductor components for military use. The reality is that the military uses electronics technologies that are at least five yrs old. We want the civilian sector to mature the products. When you play games with DDR3, we are satisfied with the first generation of DRAM because the graphics in the cockpit displays are not that sophisticated. Soviet/Russian avionics are less sophisticated than Western counterparts because Soviet/Russian commercial semicon sector are less sophisticated than Western counterparts.

 

[randomradio]

You have no proof of this. Was the ROE published? Reviewed and confirmed by whom?

As I already said, find out the ROE and let me know.

What I bring is real life experience to prove to the readers that you do not know what you are talking about.

Let's see you actually do that.

This is utter bullshit. It is clear by now that you do not know how LPI works in the first place.

A low probability of intercept (LPI) signal spreads an estimated sum of a burst over different freqs and amplitude, in other words, a 'normal' transmission for any typical radar is broken up into many smaller transmissions with different pulse characteristics.

Meh.

frequency hopping or short bursts
Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise

I already mentioned what you need for LPI.

In any ECM, including SPECRAT, amplitude is the first filter. Without this filter, the ECM system would end up responding to every signal, from TV to radio to cell phone to satellites to even cosmic background radiation.

Not anymore. Not exactly.

It's all about how the source is localised. Spectra is capable of recognising and separating all signals that have their sources identified. Typically, against a fighter jet, the Spectra is looking for signal sources that are also consistently moving at fighter aircraft speeds, and are also identified by other onboard and offboard sensors.

Before identification, Spectra analyses EVERYTHING. It has the ability to do so. Spectra can analyse tens of thousands of signals at any one time. Signals are sampled, digitised, multiple copies are made and all signals are processed. TV, cellphone, satellite etc, it doesn't matter. TV signals are fixed, cellphone signals are too slow, satellite signals are too fast, so they are all easily discarded. Reflections of these signals on other objects and the earth's surface have no consistent continuity and are easily discarded using other sensors also.

Once they have all been identified, the most dangerous threats are prioritised for cancellation. And when cancellation begins, it's all about the source.

This entire process of identification of sources can also be done by drones, not just the Rafale. So when the Rafale enters the fight, it's already activated active cancellation.

You are merely living in the 90s.

SPECRAT cannot afford to counteract against these signals. But LPI transmissions are buried within these background signals.

Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise also does nothing.

Already mentioned. There's no point to doing this now. Spectra is very effective against LPI signals also. When the threat has been localised and identified, there's no escaping unless you stop emitting completely. Unless of course you can magically teleport everywhere, thereby changing the location of the source. Of course, don't forget about the other onboard and offboard sensors that can compensate for any change in the threat sensor.

Regarding above -- bullshit.

Nope. Spectra doesn't need to know the characteristics of the signal. Spectra only needs to localise the threat.

You need sampling when you plan on reconstructing the signal after the digitisation process is finished. But for AC, there is nothing to reconstruct, everything is already there in the antenna. Only the Rafale's RCS has to be added to the signal.

And I said bullshit, therefore, it is bullshit.

But it's not. You are just outdated to the point of obsolescence.

More bullshit from you.

Most -- not all -- electronics destined for military use are MILSPEC-ed at the packaging level. For example...

https://www.masterbond.com/industrial-applications/military-electronics

Take DRAM for example.

At the manufacturer's level, a diversion line of a standard production line is created. DRAM dies that are diverted is encapsulated with extra protection against physical and EM stresses. The individual dies themselves are no different than that of the commercial line.


He is BS-ing you. There are very few exotic semiconductor components for military use. The reality is that the military uses electronics technologies that are at least five yrs old. We want the civilian sector to mature the products. When you play games with DDR3, we are satisfied with the first generation of DRAM because the graphics in the cockpit displays are not that sophisticated. Soviet/Russian avionics are less sophisticated than Western counterparts because Soviet/Russian commercial semicon sector are less sophisticated than Western counterparts.

Ain't no BS here.

Yes, military semiconductors are older, but you are talking about components required for processing. That's why I said most of this is just COTS.

I am not talking about "military grade", that term is meaningless at the design level.

What's exotic is specialised components like GaN antennas, custom made FPGA etc, which is more important at the design level.

Russian semiconductor is indeed behind the West, but it's meaningless since they just buy from the same store DARPA or Lock Mart does, Intel, TI, Nvidia etc, you name it.

Now a Russian GaN antenna will always be ahead of a Western GaAs antenna. Why? 'Cause physics.

I get your point - Russia has enough technical talent

you need state of the art equipment to fabricate those exotic semiconductors
russia has limited or no capability to make state of the art exotic semiconductors
they have trailed America during the cold war

look at Russian AWACS, electronic warfare systems. compare it to American counterparts

As Gambit has already pointed out, the military doesn't use the latest and greatest in semiconductor fabrication tech. The military is two or three generations behind civilian tech.

Old Soviet systems were not good. But modern Russian systems are as good as anything you find in the West. Even in the 90s, the Russians had already moved to COTS along with Western companies. They just don't make it to last longer, but it doesn't affect capability. For example, a MICA may last 20 years but costs $2.7M. But an R-77 will give you only 12 years for $750,000. So you just buy it twice and still get it cheap. But this is a totally different problem.

In the military, everything is about getting a generation leap. That's why the Russians decided to move towards GaN straightaway to catch up with the vast lead the US has with GaAs.

Similarly, if the USAF releases PCA with GaN by 2030, the Russians will try to make up for any difference in capability with a more advanced photonics radar at a later date, by 2035.

This is how they did it in the 80s. When the US came out with the F-15 and F-16 in the mid and late 70s, the Russians introduced the PESA in the 80s, and planned to switch to PESA for Flankers and Fulcrums by the 90s. That's who India got the Su-30MKI with PESA.

The main difference is with exotic designs. Even if the Russian GaN is inferior to the American GaN, if the Russians come out with photonics instead, they win.

 

[gambit]

As I already said, find out the ROE and let me know.

Bullshit. That burden is upon YOU because you claimed the exercise between the F-22 and Raffle were as close to actual combat as possible.

Let's see you actually do that.

I have. Too bad you are too dense to see it.

Meh.

That would be your participation on this forum.

frequency hopping or short bursts
Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise

I already mentioned what you need for LPI.

You have no idea how LPI works.

It's all about how the source is localised.

I doubt if you know what you just said.

Spectra is capable of recognising and separating all signals that have their sources identified. Typically, against a fighter jet, the Spectra is looking for signal sources that are also consistently moving at fighter aircraft speeds, and are also identified by other onboard and offboard sensors.

Am willing to bet you pull this out of your behind. FYI for you, son, most of the time in-flight, an aircraft rarely transmit anything. And I speak from experience going all the way back to high school when I learned how to fly.

Before identification, Spectra analyses EVERYTHING. It has the ability to do so. Spectra can analyse tens of thousands of signals at any one time. Signals are sampled, digitised, multiple copies are made and all signals are processed. TV, cellphone, satellite etc, it doesn't matter. TV signals are fixed, cellphone signals are too slow, satellite signals are too fast, so they are all easily discarded. Reflections of these signals on other objects and the earth's surface have no consistent continuity and are easily discarded using other sensors also.

Yeah...And I bet that 'French pro' said that.

Cell phone signals are 'too slow' and other signals are 'too fast'? WTF is this -- Indian physics where the speed of light varies?

You are merely living in the 90s.

And you are living in a dream.

You need sampling when you plan on reconstructing the signal after the digitisation process is finished. But for AC, there is nothing to reconstruct, everything is already there in the antenna. Only the Rafale's RCS has to be added to the signal.

Show me a credible ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL source that says you can construct an out of phase signal without sampling the original signal.

Ain't no BS here.

From you -- plenty of bullshit. About aviation and about semicon products.

When I used to work for Micron in the Burn-In dept, there is always a cart by my desk filled with packaged DRAM modules and the cart was labeled in bold 'MILITARY'. It was my responsibility to load those modules and run to different test flows. Some of those test I wrote. Some I modified and maintained. But I know more about MILSPEC-ed semicon products than what you can dig up on the Internet. And I say this to all readers -- YOU are full of shit.

 

[SME11B]

As I already said, find out the ROE and let me know.



Let's see you actually do that.



Meh.

frequency hopping or short bursts
Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise

I already mentioned what you need for LPI.



Not anymore. Not exactly.

It's all about how the source is localised. Spectra is capable of recognising and separating all signals that have their sources identified. Typically, against a fighter jet, the Spectra is looking for signal sources that are also consistently moving at fighter aircraft speeds, and are also identified by other onboard and offboard sensors.

How is a passive RF receiver going to tell you about the speed of whatever is emitting? How long is it going to take to filter the signal out then check with another sensor? Now you are talking about some sort of sensor fusion, I'm sure you'll tell me the rafale is the best at that also.

Before identification, Spectra analyses EVERYTHING. It has the ability to do so. Spectra can analyse tens of thousands of signals at any one time. Signals are sampled, digitised, multiple copies are made and all signals are processed. TV, cellphone, satellite etc, it doesn't matter. TV signals are fixed, cellphone signals are too slow, satellite signals are too fast, so they are all easily discarded. Reflections of these signals on other objects and the earth's surface have no consistent continuity and are easily discarded using other sensors also.

How is it able to do all that at the speed of light? You are telling me it can pick out a faint randomized lpi signal out of all that clutter and copy and send it before the signal returns?

Once they have all been identified, the most dangerous threats are prioritised for cancellation. And when cancellation begins, it's all about the source.



This entire process of identification of sources can also be done by drones, not just the Rafale. So when the Rafale enters the fight, it's already activated active cancellation.

You are merely living in the 90s.

Now some high speed drone has this magic jamming also?


Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise also does nothing.

Already mentioned. There's no point to doing this now. Spectra is very effective against LPI signals also. When the threat has been localised and identified, there's no escaping unless you stop emitting completely. Unless of course you can magically teleport everywhere, thereby changing the location of the source. Of course, don't forget about the other onboard and offboard sensors that can compensate for any change in the threat sensor.

Like I said you are describing a system that makes even the most advanced radars in the world obsolete. Good thing we have you to give us this breaking news.


Nope. Spectra doesn't need to know the characteristics of the signal. Spectra only needs to localise the threat.

If spectra doesn't know the characteristics of the signal it's looking for how will it know what to localize and tell all these wizbang drones and other third parties you mentioned where to look? Rafale can also be tracked by it's radar signals. If spectra isn't doing it's cancellation then it's another 4th gen rcs target, if spectra is doing it's jamming thing than it's frantically sending some sort of jamming signal also giving itself away.

You need sampling when you plan on reconstructing the signal after the digitisation process is finished. But for AC, there is nothing to reconstruct, everything is already there in the antenna. Only the Rafale's RCS has to be added to the signal.



But it's not. You are just outdated to the point of obsolescence.



Ain't no BS here.

Yes, military semiconductors are older, but you are talking about components required for processing. That's why I said most of this is just COTS.

I am not talking about "military grade", that term is meaningless at the design level.

What's exotic is specialised components like GaN antennas, custom made FPGA etc, which is more important at the design level.

Russian semiconductor is indeed behind the West, but it's meaningless since they just buy from the same store DARPA or Lock Mart does, Intel, TI, Nvidia etc, you name it.

Now a Russian GaN antenna will always be ahead of a Western GaAs antenna. Why? 'Cause physics.

There are many variables that go into the performance of a radar but fanboys seem to only know two, TR count and GaN.


As Gambit has already pointed out, the military doesn't use the latest and greatest in semiconductor fabrication tech. The military is two or three generations behind civilian tech.

Old Soviet systems were not good. But modern Russian systems are as good as anything you find in the West. Even in the 90s, the Russians had already moved to COTS along with Western companies. They just don't make it to last longer, but it doesn't affect capability. For example, a MICA may last 20 years but costs $2.7M. But an R-77 will give you only 12 years for $750,000. So you just buy it twice and still get it cheap. But this is a totally different problem.

In the military, everything is about getting a generation leap. That's why the Russians decided to move towards GaN straightaway to catch up with the vast lead the US has with GaAs.

Glad they just "decided" to jump ahead a generation why didn't they think of that before? Or why didn't they "decide" to leap ahead in GaAs years ago?

Similarly, if the USAF releases PCA with GaN by 2030, the Russians will try to make up for any difference in capability with a more advanced photonics radar at a later date, by 2035.

I have heard this song before. Sure whatever.

This is how they did it in the 80s. When the US came out with the F-15 and F-16 in the mid and late 70s, the Russians introduced the PESA in the 80s, and planned to switch to PESA for Flankers and Fulcrums by the 90s. That's who India got the Su-30MKI with PESA.

The main difference is with exotic designs. Even if the Russian GaN is inferior to the American GaN, if the Russians come out with photonics instead, they win.

What if this photonics tech isn't mature enough? Since its a new tech it's automatically more capable? This reminds me of that chinese quantum radar crap but they said maybe they could detect "stealth" at 60km. Can't low frequency radars already do that or better? Bottom line is I don't care about sensational jargon I care about track record and performance.

 

[randomradio]

Bullshit. That burden is upon YOU because you claimed the exercise between the F-22 and Raffle were as close to actual combat as possible.

Since you are unhappy with this, then the only logical conclusion is the ROE favoured the Rafale, hence why the F-22 could only manage 5 draws and only 1 kill.

Cell phone signals are 'too slow' and other signals are 'too fast'? WTF is this -- Indian physics where the speed of light varies?

Cellphones are typically moving at the speed of a walking person or in a car or a high speed train, while satellites are hurtling through space at high speed. Fighter planes are not flying slower than all terrestrial vehicles and not more than mach 2. Spectra can follow the source based on quickly they displace. When I said TV signals are stationary, that was clue enough. This required common sense. Another typical strawman argument.

Show me a credible ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL source that says you can construct an out of phase signal without sampling the original signal.

No signal is constructed.

The simplest way to change the phase of a signal without sampling is to use a waveguide.

A more convenient method would be to use waveguide integrated RF MEMS.

Another method would be to use micromirrors and reflect the signal with a 180 degree phase shift through optical MEMS phase shifters. One can make this micromirror using aluminium with perhaps a reflective index greater than 90%, if not 95%.

It's just an example, optical MEMS are a bit unrealistic for RF. But the idea is to give you examples of how many possibilities are available without having to resort to sampling.

When I used to work for Micron in the Burn-In dept, there is always a cart by my desk filled with packaged DRAM modules and the cart was labeled in bold 'MILITARY'. It was my responsibility to load those modules and run to different test flows. Some of those test I wrote. Some I modified and maintained. But I know more about MILSPEC-ed semicon products than what you can dig up on the Internet. And I say this to all readers -- YOU are full of shit.

The only difference between civilian and military COTS electronics is the packaging, not design.

Real military electronics are stuff you can't buy from a store or anywhere else easily. You're gonna have to invent them yourselves.

What if this photonics tech isn't mature enough? Since its a new tech it's automatically more capable? This reminds me of that chinese quantum radar crap but they said maybe they could detect "stealth" at 60km. Can't low frequency radars already do that or better? Bottom line is I don't care about sensational jargon I care about track record and performance.

The Russians have already made a prototype photonics radar. I've given it 17 years to mature, all the way to 2035. By then ground based quantum radars will be mature.

 

[gambit]

Since you are unhappy with this, then the only logical conclusion is the ROE favoured the Rafale, hence why the F-22 could only manage 5 draws and only 1 kill.

Does not matter if I am 'unhappy' with your claim or not. What matter is that you back up your claim.

Cellphones are typically moving at the speed of a walking person or in a car or a high speed train, while satellites are hurtling through space at high speed. Fighter planes are not flying slower than all terrestrial vehicles and not more than mach 2. Spectra can follow the source based on quickly they displace. When I said TV signals are stationary, that was clue enough. This required common sense. Another typical strawman argument.

Holy shit...!!! Now we are definitely into 'Indian physics' territory. The cellphone itself is moving at pedestrian speed, therefore, the EM signals that go from tower to tower to satellites must be moving at the same pedestrian speed, therefore, SPECRAT can differentiate these signals from an AESA LPI radar signal.

Folks...There is no arguing against this.

No signal is constructed.

So SPECRAT can counter without creating a countermeasure signal. More 'Indian physics'. Your fellow Indians on this forum are hanging their heads in shame, pal.

The simplest way to change the phase of a signal without sampling is to use a waveguide.

A more convenient method would be to use waveguide integrated RF MEMS.

Another method would be to use micromirrors and reflect the signal with a 180 degree phase shift through optical MEMS phase shifters. One can make this micromirror using aluminium with perhaps a reflective index greater than 90%, if not 95%.

I doubt you know how a waveguide works.

https://www.electronics-notes.com/a...rs-transmission-lines/waveguide-junctions.php

What design? Aperture size? Length? Material? Which end is inlet/outlet? SPECRAT as claimed by you is supposed to radiate in any direction, so explain to the forum how many waveguides can a pod of X-Y-Z dimensions that can accommodate 360 deg coverage.

This I have to see.

The only difference between civilian and military COTS electronics is the packaging, not design.

Real military electronics are stuff you can't buy from a store or anywhere else easily. You're gonna have to invent them yourselves.

The Russians have already made a prototype photonics radar. I've given it 17 years to mature, all the way to 2035. By then ground based quantum radars will be mature.

Give it a rest. You tried to pass off military electronics as something 'exotic' like in the movies. Now you got caught with your ignorance pants down your ankles.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

This reminds me of that chinese quantum radar crap but they said maybe they could detect "stealth" at 60km.

Here's a man who hates science and technology.

 

[nahtanbob]

More bullshit from you.

Most -- not all -- electronics destined for military use are MILSPEC-ed at the packaging level. For example...

https://www.masterbond.com/industrial-applications/military-electronics

Take DRAM for example.

At the manufacturer's level, a diversion line of a standard production line is created. DRAM dies that are diverted is encapsulated with extra protection against physical and EM stresses. The individual dies themselves are no different than that of the commercial line.


He is BS-ing you. There are very few exotic semiconductor components for military use. The reality is that the military uses electronics technologies that are at least five yrs old. We want the civilian sector to mature the products. When you play games with DDR3, we are satisfied with the first generation of DRAM because the graphics in the cockpit displays are not that sophisticated. Soviet/Russian avionics are less sophisticated than Western counterparts because Soviet/Russian commercial semicon sector are less sophisticated than Western counterparts.

in theory you could make exotic semiconductors. I doubt Russia has the ability to make them.

In USA there is more emphasis in general on cost, reliability and supply chain. That means a lot of systems are COTS. During the cold war products for the military drove innovation in civilian sector. After the cold war ended it is the other way around.

To say the Russian commercial semiconductor sector is less sophisticated than their Western counterparts is an understatement

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

To say the Russian commercial semiconductor sector is less sophisticated than their Western counterparts is an understatement

Incorrect. Russia has CPU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus-8S

 

[SME11B]

Here's a man who hates science and technology.

No I hate it when people jump the gun and assume something is either what it's not or what it's not proven to be. I just hate unfounded hype and I have seen it so many times.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

No I hate it when people jump the gun and assume something is either what it's not or what it's not proven to be. I just hate unfounded hype and I have seen it so many times.

How do you know it's hype?