It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Western Fighters Versus Eastern Fighters debate. Lets try something different.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
westy , just because they haven`t shown on the `discovery channel` what this radar can do doesn`t mean it can`t do it - its allready been declared track and scan , hi res wvr mode , A2G mode (destroyer sized target at 200km) etc - so i think it might well do everything the us systems can do.

each tranceiever has an operating output of 5watts (declared)

and how do you know (or is it an assumption again) that its a `first generation aesa` for the russians...



Now now... behave yourself.



Go and refer to Aerospace - the rules of debate before proceeding any further



With the speed of technological development, especially in electronics, it is easily possible a radar designed right now in... uhhh, say, lets say France, will trouce even the mighty APG-77. After all, it is effectively a, what, 10 year old design concept?

Of course, it will take a few years to get said radar from the design board onto a fighter, but with the progress in design technologies, that time period is shortening.




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
westy , just because they haven`t shown on the `discovery channel` what this radar can do doesn`t mean it can`t do it...


Well then please provide me the links mentioning some of it's capabilities. I never said what it can and can't do, merely that such capability had not yet been demonstrated.


Originally posted by Harlequin
- so i think it might well do everything the us systems can do.


So you "think"? Well I don't "think", and no offense intended but that is hardly enough evidence to base one's conclusions on.


Originally posted by Harlequin
and how do you know (or is it an assumption again) that its a `first generation aesa` for the russians...


Read my post carefully, ...essentially a fist generation fighter AESA (for the Russians)... If you care do dispute this feel free. The Tikhomirov NIIP Epaulet-A is not in the same development stage as the Zhuk AE. Therefore this is the first production (fighter) AESA radar for the Russians.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
found this whilst searching

img291.imageshack.us...

www.aviapedia.com...

now that may well be the sales pitch but it is the first hard details i can find

and at the time

img229.imageshack.us...


was working and not a prototype *although* it is talked that the above will be used in PAK-FA and won`t be used in a present airframe - so i do think it is ready first.


which does of course lend weight to my `supposition` that the russan aesa can do everything the US systems *in service* can do.

although i will concur the Zhuk-AE is the first flying fighter aesa.


as an aside - i can see the brits fielding the first helo aesa on the new lynx next year.

[edit on 16/8/07 by Harlequin]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
was working and not a prototype... - so i do think it is ready first.


The Epaulet-A was more of a test bed and it was not ready to be put into mass production, hence not at the same stage of development as the Zhuk-AE. The system in your picture represent their small scale development which only included 68 modules. The technology developed from it will go into the radar for Russia's next generation fighter.


Originally posted by Harlequin
which does of course lend weight to my `supposition` that the russan aesa can do everything the US systems *in service* can do.


Let's not get carried away there, you initially commented on the AN/APG-79 and you have still to prove it can perform all of it's functions. So lets forget about comparing it to other more capable radar systems like the APG-77 and APG-81. While those poster specification were interesting and surprising they are hardly overly impressive. I was surprised that it was only a 500 mm class radar, rather small, although that could explain the raw performance specifications. Couple this size with it's likely T/R technology level (size, power, efficiency) and it should have less modules than the APG-79. I'm still interested in the areas electronic attack, low probability of intercept and simultaneous ground and air mode. As I said before the raw specification did not impress me as they are not in the same league as those found on US AESA systems.


Originally posted by Harlequin
as an aside - i can see the brits fielding the first helo aesa on the new lynx next year.


Congratulations.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 

Sorry Westy but 'twas me' that brought up the comparison between the Zhuk AE and the APG-79. And yes I should have explained the technically comparable comparison between the two. I was relying on a third party comment I have read and upon further investigation I can find little that shows the two in comparison. So I'll retract my statement, (untill otherwise proven) however if you have any data regarding the two I would like to see it as there is not much I could find. Most of the detection range comparisons don't match up and I could not find any array dimensions or T/R module counts for both(I have a reference to the "79's" module count.... somewhere?). The Phazatron website only gave me the number of chanels and rated power output figures.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
i think the rusian gunships should be looked into a little more, the KA50 and 52 or fantastic helis, to see a ka/ fitted with hellfires and maybe some comanche hardware would be a interesting idea, and how about the old concordski with US engines and used as a super sonic awac?



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


According to the data that I have been able to find online, the current Zhuk-AE radar found on the Mig-35 has an antenna dish 575 mm in diameter consisting of 680 TR modules (170 packs with four modules each). Despite the massive physical size of the airframe radar dome the dish was small due to technical and financial challenges. Specific details on the Super Hornet's radar were harder to find but the AN/APG-79's most quoted size was in the ~700 mm class and it features a TR module count of ~1,100. While Zhuk-AE maker, Phazatron offers several specifications for the AE, the US military does not give out such facts. Third party sources indicate that the both the tracking and detection ability of the AN/APG-79 against a 3m2 target (for like comparison) would be at or in excess of 100nm. However these are only the hard facts, details about functions, efficiency and modes are even harder to find and asses. Capabilities in ISR, electronic attack etc... cannot be factored in. Still, I stand by my view that this current Zhuk-AE design is not yet in the same league as the APG-79. However there are future Phazatron designs being evaluated which offer a much greater degree of capability. When that technology matures the differences then may not be so great.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Thanks for the data Westy. The Zhuk AE's array is much smaller than the APG-79, than I would have thought. And a significantly smaller module count. Interesting that Phazatron are looking at further developments of the "AE". Perhaps it was these expanded capabillity versions that the source comparing the APG-79/Zhuk AE I saw was actually referring to?

LEE.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Westy you wouldn't believe it but our little discussion on the Zhuk AE versus the APG-79 was it seems the forerunner of this thead. In addition the source for this information is contained at this link. I haven't chased it further but the info seems legit. Seems that development versions are well and truly in the works.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
Seems that development versions are well and truly in the works.


Indeed, these new models are the future designs that I spoke of in my last post. They are being offered for service and it will be interesting to see how they develop further.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join