Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter to Exceed Rivals

[ptldM3]

First aircraft to recieve AESA was Boeing 707 with Phalcon AEW&C in 1993.

As far as i know Raytheon was the first to develope an operational AESA for the F-15, perhaps they don't take awac's platforms into account.

Anyways please post a source.

 

[amalakas]

Well, its not necessary for IRST to provide image. It should search and track. For example OLS-27 which is installed on Su-27/30 and Mig-29 does not give any picture at all.
.

Couldn't put it better byself. The IRST sensors do not need to provide an image. The image is just an illustration/demonstration side of the sensors resolution capacity.

an IRST sensor comes with extensive DSP electronics meant to seperate any potential interesting targets from background clutter.

isolate it, focus on it, zoom on it or whatever else the designer thinks the sensor should do.
much like RADAR electronics do.

 

[Devianz]

can you plz explain how does it work????

Here... help yourself

Understanding radar systems

Modern radar systems

 

[gambit]

Couldn't put it better byself. The IRST sensors do not need to provide an image. The image is just an illustration/demonstration side of the sensors resolution capacity.

an IRST sensor comes with extensive DSP electronics meant to seperate any potential interesting targets from background clutter.

isolate it, focus on it, zoom on it or whatever else the designer thinks the sensor should do.
much like RADAR electronics do.

Keep going. So far nothing worthwhile yet to debunk...

 

[amalakas]

Keep going. So far nothing worthwhile yet to debunk...

haha.. perhaps because there is nothing to debunk. Things are as they are, how effective they will be remains to be seen.

 

[500]

As far as i know Raytheon was the first to develope an operational awacs for the F-15, perhaps they don't take awac's platforms into account.

Yep they did not take AWACS into account:

After designing and building the world’s first operational AESA fighter radar—the APG-63(V)2 for the F-15C, first fielded in 2000

Raytheon Company: Raytheon's Revolutionary AESA Technology

Anyways please post a source.

the first Phalcon system to be installed was fitted to a former LanChile Boeing 707, and was first flown in 1993 In May 1994 the aircraft was delivered to the Chilean Air Force, where it is known as the Condor.

EL/M-2075 Phalcon Airborne Early Warning And Control System(AWACS)

 

[gambit]

haha.. perhaps because there is nothing to debunk. Things are as they are, how effective they will be remains to be seen.

If you make things vague enough: possibly, may be, could... And so on, what is there to debunk? But that is all that you got and is enough for the gullible to go on.

 

[amalakas]

If you make things vague enough: possibly, may be, could... And so on, what is there to debunk? But that is all that you got and is enough for the gullible to go on.

Hey, I am not selling anything. You on the other hand could well be on LM's payroll the way you defend their.. "designs".

the bottom line is that time will tell. People tend to know the truth even if they make their best to deny it.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

I added more information in my previous post.


Someone that's in denial and someone that has been wrong 90% of the time is "calling my bullshit".....priceless.

I gave you atleast two link, yet you ignored them.

Take a look at the following and this time take off your blindfold.

http://www.rfalliance.org/2010 conference/presentations/04 Eli Brookner.pdf

This is meaningless, First you claim that russian AESA radar contained metamaterials.

Now you post an image showing that they strunk EPLRS antennas using metamaterials.

Enhanced Position Location Reporting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EPLRS is a communications network, similar to a router network. Which they then showed that you could shorten the antenna of a router using the same technique.

None of this has any relevance to plane arrayed radars

Oh boy....

All radars have a main computer that processes incoming information via antenna and transmitters to, for example, the LCM's. Things such as capacitors are scattered through out and are just an extension of the main radar computer.

Take a look:

http://www.esicomputing.com/documents/IEEE.pdf

Earlier did i not mention that the radar computer is responsible for things such as target classification as stated in the source?

Here is more:

http://www.esicomputing.com/documents/IEEE.pdf

No you are just whining about pointless semantics (no doubt to draw attention away from your ignorance about modern material science)

You made the claim that a radar was a computer which is simply NOT TRUE.

You seem to have no understanding about the basic difference between a radar and a radar system.

In a modern radar system, the radar is connected to a computer which is connected to a display.

Similarly a mouse is connected to a desktop (computer) which is then connected to a display.

Get it?

Radar = Mouse
Desktop = Computer
Radar display = Monitor

Would you say that someone is wrong if they called a mouse a computer?

A Radar does not necessarily NEED to be connected to a computer as the term radar was applied to early 1940's systems that had no computers.

Back up, it was you that started claiming that Russia is behind and that China can create something better than the pak-fa. I only mentioned China's struggles with engines because you claimed China's research into science is an indication that China can create better things than Russia and that Chinese technology rivals the US, clearly all that scientific research isn't helping China develope angines superior to Russian's engines. And the condom anology was an axample that much of the material science is not applicable to the military, for instance, creating a better condom that uses new rubber will fall under material science---which means nothing in terms of military aviation.

And how is your engine and radar remotely related to the development of metamaterials and nanomaterials used in in full stealth planes?

China has plenty of things that Russia does not have like Maglev, KBBF and the likes.

And there is a definite correlation between amount of papers written in a country and how well the country excels in that field.


How many papers do you see countries like Africa producing, the most high tech countries the USA, Japan, Germany are the countries that produce the most papers.

The only technology that Russia leads in is Nuclear science and aviation relics from the cold war. The F-22 requires leadership in around 10 different fields of science to build.

Russian science in a state of 'decline' - physicsworld.com

Over the last five years, researchers in Russia have produced about 127,000 papers across all sciences, accounting for about 2.6% of the world's output, according to data taken from Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science database. This share of publications is less than that for researchers in China and India, with 2.9% and 8.4%, respectively, but higher than fellow BRIC nation Brazil, whose scientists publish about 102,000 papers that account for 2.1% of the world’s output.

Russia still maintains a strong focus in the physical sciences but this too is in decline compared with other countries’ output. Between 1999 and 2003, physics articles published by researchers based in Russia accounted for 9.7% of the world’s output, with about 38,000 papers published. However, between 2004 and 2008 that number had shrunk to 7.4%, or 35,000 papers.

 

[ptldM3]

This is meaningless, First you claim that russian AESA radar contained metamaterials.

I never claimed that--get your facts right, or take some English reading courses. I provided sources proving that Russia has experience in metamaterials after you blatantly said we did not, never did i say any Russian radar had metamaterials. Although it is a real possibility.

Now you post an image showing that they strunk EPLRS antennas using metamaterials.

First read what you said about metamaterials in regards to radar:

As you can see the only mention of metamaterials in regard to radars is that they can use metamaterials to make stealth planes that can make it diffucult for AESA to detect.

What you are saying is that metamaterials are none applicable to radars but instead only serve to mask an aircraft's radar cross section? Which has been proven be be wrong, the EPLRS was only an example that metamaterial applies to radars because AESA radars too have entennas. I also illustrated that metamaterials applies to circuits.

Metamaterials makes it possible to shrink entennas, which is a critical component of any radar.

Read the following:

Meta-materials shrink antennas - 29/01/2010 - Electronics Weekly

US researchers are shrinking antennas by using meta-materials - structures with negative refractive index.

They are claimed by NIST to be as small as one-fiftieth of a wavelength, with a UHF aerial measuring under 65mm square, while radiating up to 95% of input power.

Notice the officiency which is also a goal of any radar.


Are you still sticking to your failed argument?




Enhanced Position Location Reporting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EPLRS is a communications network, similar to a router network. Which they then showed that you could shorten the antenna of a router using the same technique.

None of this has any relevance to plane arrayed radars

It has all the relevance in the world, metamaterials can shrink entennas but acheive atleast the same range, usually greater. How is that not relivant?

Besides that i have posted a number of scientific articals writen by professionals in the feild of radars that are saying that metamaterials are applicable to AESA radars.

No you are just whining about pointless semantics (no doubt to draw attention away from your ignorance about modern material science)

You made the claim that a radar was a computer which is simply NOT TRUE.

Are you kidding me? Stop putting words in my mouth, this is what i said:

Wow, just wow, a radar is made up of many components, here's a few: entanna, transmiter modules, and of course the radar computer.

The computer processes: aerial targets, provides terrain mapping, distiguishes clutter, and assignes targets.

And who said radars are computers? A radar is full of computers, those same computers allow the above functions to be possible.

You seem to have no understanding about the basic difference between a radar and a radar system.

In a modern radar system, the radar is connected to a computer which is connected to a display.

Similarly a mouse is connected to a desktop (computer) which is then connected to a display.

Get it?

Radar = Mouse
Desktop = Computer
Radar display = Monitor

Unbeleivible! Again read my information carefully, here is what i have said before:

All radars have a main computer that processes incoming information via antenna and transmitters to, for example, the LCM's. Things such as capacitors are scattered through out and are just an extension of the main radar computer.

In that sentence i made it clear that a radar is made up of many components such as entannas, than i made it clear that it's the radar computer's function to process the information and send it to the LCM's (liquid crystal monitors), or as you call it "displays".


Dont you feel embarrassed? Maybe next time you will read my posts carefully.

A Radar does not necessarily NEED to be connected to a computer as the term radar was applied to early 1940's systems that had no computers.

Who said that radars can only work with the aid of a computer? Early radars were nothing like the radars we use today, they were crued, bulky, and could acheive only a fraction of what a modern radar can acheive.

This is one of the earliest forms of radar:


History of radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difficulty in pinpointing the direction of these fleeting signals led to the use of rotating directional antennas, and in 1923 the use of oscilloscopes in order to display the signals

Notice that it used oscilloscopes to diplay information--today we use LCM's to display information.


And this was one of the first operational radars:



History of radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pollard led the first project, a gun-laying RDF code-named Mobile Radio Unit (MRU). This truck-mounted system was designed a small version of a CH station. It operated at 23 MHz (13 m) with a power of 300 kW. A single 105-foot tower supported a transmitting antenna, as well as two receiving antennas set orthogonally for estimating the signal bearing. In February 1937, a developmental unit detected an aircraft at 60 m (96 km) range. The Air Ministry also adopted this system as a mobile auxiliary to the CH system

I am aware of radar history, but we are not talking about ancient radars, we are talking about AESA radars, and, like it or not, AESA radars do use computers.

Let me repeat since you have difficulty understanding, we are talking about AESA radars which use computers not early forms of radars which consisted of few parts such as entennas and osilliscopes to display information.

And how is your engine and radar remotely related to the development of metamaterials and nanomaterials used in in full stealth planes?

Again go back read what i wrote and than read what you wrote, for the millionth time i mentioned China's struggles with things such as engines because you started thumping your chest claiming that China can make a superior stealth aircraft compared to Russia and that China even "rivals" the US. Clearly it's proof that all those scientific articals are a wet dream.

China has plenty of things that Russia does not have like Maglev, KBBF and the likes.

And Russia has plenty of things that China does not such as stealth which you claimed China can do better in, i do admite those photoshops of Chinese stealth aircraft send shivers down my spine.

And there is a definite correlation between amount of papers written in a country and how well the country excels in that field.

Yet somehow Israel is ranked 22nd and most of their technology is light years ahead of anything China has, also Spain, for example, is ranked 9th, yet what have they created that is so ground breaking? Israel is also far ahead of Spain in technology.

 

[amalakas]

ptldM3
Dude

don't pay attention.

The man apparently has an orgasm everytime he writes the word "metamaterials"

I have read the whole thing 4 times and still can't understand what his point is !!!

 

[Chinaownseverything]

ptldM3
Dude

don't pay attention.

The man apparently has an orgasm everytime he writes the word "metamaterials"

I have read the whole thing 4 times and still can't understand what his point is !!!

My argument is that

Look at stealth ships and look at the F-117

http://eaa119.org/images/f117.jpg

Notice how they look so bulky and angled? While the F-22 is not bulky? instead it looks more like a Su-27?

http://www.commutefaster.com/F-22.jpg

So how does the F-22 retain such a stealth profile? (especially if you read well the scientific papers about radar effects on different slopes)

Hey guess what happened in 1990?

History of metamaterials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1990s Sir John Pendry, a physicist from Imperial College in London who was consulting for a British company, Marconi Materials Technology, as a condensed matter physics expert. The company manufactured a stealth technology, a radiation-absorbing carbon, for naval vessels. However, the company did not understand the physics of the material. The company asked Pendry if he could figure it out.

For ships they care only for maximizing stealth while for planes it is a tradeoff the more stealthy the design the worse the aerodynamics.

The F-22 manages to get both however because the airframe supports aerodynamics more and is made stealthy by meta materials and RAM paint.

China and the USA both have large metamaterials industry and large metamaterials research (in terms of papers published). While Russia does not have either of these.

So one would reason that the radiation absorbing metal and paint produced by Russia would be of inferior quality.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

I never claimed that--get your facts right, or take some English reading courses. I provided sources proving that Russia has experience in metamaterials after you blatantly said we did not, never did i say any Russian radar had metamaterials. Although it is a real possibility.

You showed a handful of Russian papers on metamaterials. Which is not proof of anything, Russia's metamaterials industry and the amount of papers that Russia produces regarding the subject are a tiny fraction of China and the USA's

First read what you said about metamaterials in regards to radar:

What you are saying is that metamaterials are none applicable to radars but instead only serve to mask an aircraft's radar cross section? Which has been proven be be wrong, the EPLRS was only an example that metamaterial applies to radars because AESA radars too have entennas. I also illustrated that metamaterials applies to circuits.

Metamaterials makes it possible to shrink entennas, which is a critical component of any radar.

Just because experts claim it is possible doesn't mean that we are doing it, there are many physicists who claim that things like massless propulsion and faster then light travel is possible.

It has all the relevance in the world, metamaterials can shrink entennas but acheive atleast the same range, usually greater. How is that not relivant?

Besides that i have posted a number of scientific articals writen by professionals in the feild of radars that are saying that metamaterials are applicable to AESA radars.

Again refer to my above post clearly nobody has actually implemented it yet just like massless propulsion. Or there is little to no evidence to support that people are doing it now.

Clearly the Antenna used for communications is different from the Antenna used used in radars.

In that sentence i made it clear that a radar is made up of many components such as entannas, than i made it clear that it's the radar computer's function to process the information and send it to the LCM's (liquid crystal monitors), or as you call it "displays".


Dont you feel embarrassed? Maybe next time you will read my posts carefully.

Post #123

Your Quote

You were boasting that Chinese computers are better than Russian computers...

My Reply

Radars are not computer

Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns -- Supercomputers -- InformationWeek

Russia Lags In Supercomputers, Medvedev Warns

Russia ranks 15th on the list of countries with the most powerful supercomputers, he noted, and 95 percent of the machines are manufactured in the U.S.

In Summary, I made the claim that China has better computers.

You replied with if China has better computer why do their radars suck?

I then replied that computers are not radar.

Which you then claimed that computers are radar

I then answered that just because a radar is connected to a computer does not mean that radar is a computer

Who said that radars can only work with the aid of a computer? Early radars were nothing like the radars we use today, they were crued, bulky, and could acheive only a fraction of what a modern radar can acheive.

Notice that it used oscilloscopes to diplay information--today we use LCM's to display information.


And this was one of the first operational radars:

I was Using History of radars to show that the term "Radar" to show the definition of radar

I am aware of radar history, but we are not talking about ancient radars, we are talking about AESA radars, and, like it or not, AESA radars do use computers.

Let me repeat since you have difficulty understanding, we are talking about AESA radars which use computers not early forms of radars which consisted of few parts such as entennas and osilliscopes to display information.

No **** sherlock, I never claimed that AESA had no computers

Again go back read what i wrote and than read what you wrote, for the millionth time i mentioned China's struggles with things such as engines because you started thumping your chest claiming that China can make a superior stealth aircraft compared to Russia and that China even "rivals" the US. Clearly it's proof that all those scientific articals are a wet dream.

Read the post before this one, critical stealth components are nanomaterials and metamaterials which China is clearly ahead in based on the size of the industry and numbers of papers written on each field.

And Russia has plenty of things that China does not such as stealth which you claimed China can do better in, i do admite those photoshops of Chinese stealth aircraft send shivers down my spine.

Theres a lot of evidence that China is ahead of Russia in stealth due to critical stealth components being nanotechnology and metamaterials. Fields that China is #2 in after the USA.






Yet somehow Israel is ranked 22nd and most of their technology is light years ahead of anything China has, also Spain, for example, is ranked 9th, yet what have they created that is so ground breaking? Israel is also far ahead of Spain in technology.[/QUOTE]

 

[amalakas]

Dude, enough

the F22 and the F35 have as much to do with metamaterials as they have with metaphysics ....

the excellent F22 design is down to the key understanding and computer aided design of and on the theories developed by Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev.

Designers have a much better understanding and can simulate far better the difraction and absorbtion of em waves far better now than they could in the 70's .

Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction
Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev

I suggest you buy the book if you have any doubts ...
oh by the way , the guy was russian and he wrote the book in the 60's ...

oh .. and the ENTIRE stealth tech is based on it.

 

[KingOfGods]

i want to ask 1 thing.......does india has any role in this 5th generation fighter project of russia??

If you are asking about PAK FA...........yes. Detail is listed below.

India to develop 25% of fifth generation fighter
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi January 6, 2010, 0:36 IST

Scrutinising the Sukhoi Corporation’s work on the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) — a project that India will soon sign up to co-develop — gives one an idea of Russia’s size, and its aerospace expertise. During daytime, in Moscow, the Sukhoi Design Bureau conceptualises FGFA components; by 10 pm the drawings are electronically transmitted over 5,000 kilometres to a manufacturing unit in Siberia. Here, at KnAAPO (Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Organisation) — seven time zones away — it is already 5 am next morning. Within a couple of hours, the drawings start being translated into aircraft production.

Having designed over 100 aircraft (including India’s Su-30MKI), built over 10,000 fighters, and with 50 world aviation records to its credit, Sukhoi understandably regards Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) — its partner-to-be in designing the FGFA — as very much the greenhorn.

But the newcomer wants its due. Bangalore-based HAL has negotiated firmly to get a 25 per cent share of design and development work in the FGFA programme. HAL’s work share will include critical software, including the mission computer (the Su-30MKI mission computer is entirely Indian); navigation systems; most of the cockpit displays; the counter measure dispensing (CMD) systems; and modifying Sukhoi’s single-seat prototype into the twin-seat fighter that the Indian Air Force (IAF) wants.


India will also contribute its expertise in aircraft composites, developed while designing the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Russia has traditionally built metallic aircraft; just 10 per cent of the Su-30MKI fuselage is titanium and composites. The FGFA’s fuselage, in contrast, will be 25 per cent titanium and 20 per cent composites. Russia’s expertise in titanium structures will be complemented by India’s experience in composites.

With India’s work share almost finalised, the 2007 Russia-India Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to build the FGFA will soon evolve into a commercial contract between Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and HAL. Ashok Baweja, until recently the chairman of HAL, told Business Standard: “When HAL and UAC agree on terms, they will sign a General Contract. This will include setting up a JV to design the FGFA, and precise details about who will fund what.”

This contract will mark a significant shift in the aeronautical relationship between India and Russia. For decades, HAL has played a technologically subordinate role, assembling and building fighters that Russia had designed. Now, forced to accept HAL as a design partner, the Russians have negotiated hard to limit its role.

The reason: Russia is sceptical about India’s design ability in such a cutting edge project. In June 2008, Business Standard interviewed Vyacheslav Trubnikov, then Russia’s ambassador to India, and an expert on Russia’s defence industry. Contrasting the Su-30MKI with the Tejas LCA, Trubnikov pointed out snidely, “I know perfectly well the Russian ability. But I don’t know what contribution the Indian side might make. So, one must ask the question to the Indian designers, to HAL…what is their claim for building a fighter of the fifth generation type? Either avionics, or engine? What might be India’s contribution? To be absolutely frank, I don’t know.”

For long, the UAC argued that HAL could not expect a major role in the FGFA because Sukhoi had finished much of the work while New Delhi dithered about joining the project. UAC asserts that 5,000 Sukhoi engineers have worked for five years to design the FGFA. Such claims are hard to verify, but it is known that the Sukhoi Design Bureau has about 8,000 engineers, distributed between many different programmes.

With Sukhoi’s ploughing on alone, Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju admitted to Business Standard: “The longer India waits to join the project, the lesser will be our contribution. But, we are not sitting idle. Through the defence ministry’s existing programmes [such as the Tejas LCA] we are building up our capabilities.”

Most Indian officials agree that India has not lost much. Even if the FGFA makes its much-anticipated first flight this year, it is still at a preliminary stage of development. Ashok Baweja assessed in early 2009, “The FGFA’s first flight is just the beginning of the programme. My understanding is that the Russians are going ahead (with the test) to validate the FGFA’s “proof of concept” (conceptual design). Whatever composite materials they have now, they’ll use. But, because the composites will change… the FGFA will keep evolving for a fairly long time.”

A top ministry official estimates, “It will take another 4-5 years to develop many of the FGFA’s systems. Then, the aircraft will undergo at least 2000 hours of certification flying and, possibly, some reconfiguration. The FGFA should not be expected in service before 2017. And the twin-seat version may take a couple of years longer.”

With just a 25 per cent share of design, South Block policymakers still believe that the FGFA project is a vital step towards India’s emergence as a military aeronautical power. “Developing 25 per cent of this fighter is far better than just transferring technology to build it in India, as we did with the Su-30MKI,” points out a defence ministry official.

Ashok Baweja puts the project in context. “India can only (develop the FGFA) by partnering with Russia. They have so much experience. It’s not just the design… you must also have materials… maraging steel, titanium, composite alloys, and the industrial base to convert these into high-tech components like gyros, sensors and optics. The FGFA will give us important experience for building fighters hereafter.”

Link:
India to develop 25% of fifth generation fighter