Russia lifts ban on delivering missile-defence system to Iran

a reply to: mSparks43

Power. The F-35 barely has enough power and cooling to run its electronics. Older aircraft would have to be completely rebuilt from the ground up with all new power and cooling systems. That would limit other areas such as fuel or weapons. It would also be almost as expensive as an entirely new design would by the time it was done.

Passive radar requires a ton of computing power. That means AWACS sized aircraft if you want range. A fighter, not even a fifth generation, doesn't have the sheer computing power required for it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mSparks43

Power. The F-35 barely has enough power and cooling to run its electronics. Older aircraft would have to be completely rebuilt from the ground up with all new power and cooling systems. That would limit other areas such as fuel or weapons. It would also be almost as expensive as an entirely new design would by the time it was done.

Wondered how long ti would be before he came back to passive radar and the S-300s. Well wonder no more his last post brings us full circle to aww murrh guudness russian wepuns is teh haxxor!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Calling bs.

Only way I can see that being true is if the US and Russia gave up on the silicon developments over the last 40 years and went back to valve based technology.

Then again, maybe the US engineers really are that stupid.

a reply to: mSparks43

This from the person that claims the T-50 is just a shell you lay over an Su-27 type?

Go take a two or three year old computer, replace all the components with new top of the line parts, adding more boards and components. All while leaving the original processor, power supply, and cooling in it. Then come back and tell us how that worked for you.

Now why would you think that a 10-15 year old aircraft, or older can run to of the line modern systems?

You really should learn at least a little about aircraft before you start trying to sound like an expert.

a reply to: Zaphod58
->Now why would you think that a 10-15 year old aircraft, or older can run to of the line modern systems?

Because you could bolt them into a ford pickup truck if you wanted.

probably wouldn't fly very well tho.

There's no problem putting new computer parts in an old case. (unless you own an apple, then, talking from one of my staffs experience, you'd waste a lot of time with a drill and tin snips)

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Zaphod58

Calling bs.

Only way I can see that being true is if the US and Russia gave up on the silicon developments over the last 40 years and went back to valve based technology.

Then again, maybe the US engineers really are that stupid.

You just need to stop I know alot about weopon systems do to my job in the military and later applied my degree in physics with a defense contractor out of falls church. And as far as aircraft Zaphod58 knows more than I do I will always take his word with something aircraft related he's shown to be right to often. So please just stop either you want to learn or you want to troll. We have explained over and over how systems work and that just don't do these magical things you atribute to Russian weopons.

The reason it takes energy to run computers batteries each system puts strain on power generators . Just can't run a DC converter on a computer needs uninterrupted power supply with back up redundancy. You don't throw a desktop in a 5th generation fighter they are on itself super computers. Russians are learning this the hard way right now there computers aren't able to do the job thus the sluggish performance there seeing. Add that to the underpowered engine and it will be at least a decade before they have their stealth fighter. Roughly about 3 decades behind the US.

Now we havnt even got onto the latest toys thw US military has to play with like EMP bursts. They have already tested lasers again about 2 decades before Russia gets there. They are having a problem with energy and beam scattering issues. They can make something warm or blind you. Where the US is already testing things like the ABC turrets. And F35 already has lasers to shoot down missiles one of the reasons they won't let the rear of the aircraft get filmed. The tech gap between the US and Russia is still quite large in most areas. Think of the money the US Defense Department has then look at what Russia spent over the last decade wouldn't even total 1 yr of spending.

a reply to: mSparks43

Yes. Yes there is. There are different power requirements, different cooling requirements, etc. You can upgrade, but at a certain point you need a new power supply, and additional cooling. It only gets worse when you're talking about aircraft.

An AN/APG-66 was a mechanically steered radar. That means that the antenna moves to steer the radar beam. Peak power is 16 kw.


The PESA radar installed on some Flankers is a 20 kw system. That doesn't even touch the cooling requirements for PESA and AESA systems.

The more systems you add, the less power you have to spare. Eventually you run out of power. If you replace a 16 kw radar, with a 20 kw radar, that's 4 kw that can't go to other things. You can actually get to the point where you have to choose between systems to run to balance the power systems.

a reply to: Zaphod58

power and stealth is an interesting relationship.
namely
the more power you consume
The more RF you emit

I'll take the US airforces opinion over yours
nationalinterest.org...

The addition of the electronic attack (EA) capability complicates matters for Western fighters because the Su-35’s advanced digital radio frequency memory jammers can seriously degrade the performance of friendly radars. It also effectively blinds the onboard radars found onboard American-made air-to-air missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Further, the Air Force official added that even modernized versions of older jets would be in serious trouble against the new Flanker variant. “I'd say our fourth-gen AESAs aren't a big advantage,” said the official. “They're more to get us back in the game against jamming.”

SUXX powertrain has more than enough spare capacity for anything you want to put on it.
short of the latest DE stuff.

a reply to: mSparks43

You do realize that doesn't have anything to do with anything I said right? That's talking about older aircraft against newer aircraft. The newer aircraft are always going to have an advantage.

Bull. You don't put a power supply that has that much excess power on an aircraft. It's heavy, and doesn't give you any advantage. Having extra power doesn't get you any advantage, but does give you more weight, which is a disadvantage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

from the same page

The F-35 was built primarily as a strike fighter and does not have the sheer speed or altitude capability of the Su-35

So already well behind the curve on avionics.
and not even close to air superiority.

You understand that aircraft power source is tapped off the engine?

a reply to: mSparks43

Again, what does that have to do with anything that I've said?

Although you're dreaming of you think a 4++ has better avionics than 5th generation. You do realize that avionics get BETTER as the numbers go higher right?

Yes, yes, I know. Russia is the best in everything. You really should try to learn, instead of just pounding your chest at how much better Russia is at everything.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't say better.

more important is cost and hence numbers.

and most important is payload, speed, altitude and situational awareness.

and the F35 will not have an advantage in any of those aspects - over current, mass produced su airframe planes.

let alone the T50/PAK FA. (whose early version of the supercruise engine is already being mass produced)


Are you sure you aren't confusing the power and cooling requirements of VTOL (which is huge), with the power and cooling required for 5th gen avionics (which is less, and the russian dev pathway is currently to fit them to 4th gen airframes).

a reply to: mSparks43

Again with the chest thumping. The F-35 will have better situational awareness than any other aircraft currently flying, including the T-50.

It doesn't need speed and altitude advantages. As far as payload, the Su-35/37 can carry 17,000 pounds of a mix of bombs and missiles. The F-35A, using external hardpoints, can carry a total of 18,000 pounds. The F-35B can carry 15,000 pounds, and the F-35C can carry 18,000 pounds.

The F-35 isn't meant to be a fighter, although it may prove quite capable in that role. It's too early to tell still. I highly recommend you expand your horizons beyond Russia is the best, and the F-35 sucks. It's amazing what you can learn if you have an open mind.

I am well aware of the difference between cooling for the lift fan, and for avionics. Unlike you, I have many years of hands on experience with aircraft, and many more years studying everything I've been able to get my hands on. Fifth generation electronics will not fit on fourth generation aircraft. Not even Russian aircraft, as far ahead of everyone else as you claim they are.

a reply to: Zaphod58

this is nothing todo with "russia is best"

That an is easy one and has nothing todo with any single piece of hardware.
simple conflict comparison will do
US/UK plc has
Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran, along with Lebanon and Gaza

and Russia has
South ossetia and Donetsk.

Western markets are going up against 2nd and 3rd gen russia tech and has lost (mostly due to funding and quality of personel).
Russia went up against (slightly older) 4th gen Russian and US tech and won outright.

That's not chest pounding, its simple statement of facts.

I have no doubt you have experience to hold a decent conversation on the topic. doesn't make you right. and I see nothing in what you have said above that makes me think the current situation of declining western influence and increasing eastern influence is going to change, least of all when they finally get the F35 battle ready.

S300 is one more nail in that coffin, since it closes the door on US/UK being able to do anything to stop the Iran-Russia-China relationship.

a reply to: mSparks43

Wow. You really believe that don't you. We didn't lose anything. We handily rolled through both Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. That Russian tech that you claim is so great was destroyed in days. It's a completely different thing to occupy a country.

I love how you sit there with a straight face and say you know almost nothing about this topic except what you've read, yet you know more than someone that lived this for thirty years, and you have the gall to tell me I know enough "to have a conversation".

Jesus you're arrogant aren't you. You keep living in your delusions about how Russia is the most advanced nation in the world and is decades ahead of everyone else, and a fourth generation fighter is years ahead of more advanced aircraft, and I'll keep living in the real world.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i love how you sit there with a straight face proud that you won in Afghanistan.

that one I agree with.

their opium fields are finally back to full production.
woop de DOO.

rest.
like I said. nothing to do with one piece of hardware.
everything to do with strategy, skill and funding.

won the battle lost the war.
and in the process alienated most of the world.
again
woop de doo.

if you want to compare cocs i was sat down with various ministers from the ukraine tail end of last year. very interesting to get the inside story. feel really sorry for them.

but like I said.
not ready to talk about that yet.

Screw it, I'm done. You win. The Russians are the best at everything.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Screw it, I'm done. You win. The Russians are the best at everything.

Zaphod just have this thread closed. Im tired of some posters utterly ignoring evidence that in a court of law would have a killer send to death row as well. I give up to. Sometimes the kool aid is too strong with certain people. Just makes me sad that trolling is considered intelligence these days.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's a very deep rabbit hole you are stood over :p
Come to the dark side with me.

On a more serious note.
Maybe not. Their issues are very different. it's not entirely clear cut that their winning is a "good" outcome.

___
and actually.
This thread looks like it may be based on a story from Jan.
And I think we all missed that it may actually be for s400s, not the s300s we've all been waiting for the last 8 years.
missilethreat.com...

With its cooperation pact of Jan. 20, Russia became the Iranian armed forces’ primary supplier of new and sophisticated weapons systems,up to and including S-400 missiles – in defiance of the arms embargo against the Islamic Republic and US policies at large.

erm.
Yep
www.businessinsider.com...

"A step was taken in the direction of cooperation on the economy and arms technology, at least such defensive systems such as the S-300 and S-400. Probably we will deliver them," RIA quoted Colonel General Leonid Ivashov as saying.

a reply to: dragonridr

did you just say US is ahead of Russia in AD systems ? lol , quite an embarrassing notion IMHO .

Patriot PAC-3 specs :

www.globalsecurity.org...

S-300 , Russia's 70's tech :

en.wikipedia.org...

hmm .

PAC-3 missile range :15 km -75km PAC-3 radar range : 100 km

S-300 missile range : 300km

completely ahead i see . keep up the good job