PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Meh, if the processor works, stick with it.  The other aspect is that the Intel processor, much like the Elbrus one, has been tested for extreme conditions of electromagetnic pulses to prevent major damages to it (either that or go back to vaccum tubes for everything) and has been in production for a lot longer (MCST one is actually quite new), thus making it a lot cheaper than another one that could be faster, but provides no added benefit.  Same processor is being used for F-35 as well.

It goes back to the old question: Would one computer to power all on an aircraft be better/cheaper than multiple computers for various gadgets in an aircraft?  In this case, I would the latter be better since if the computer fails, it wont take everything with it.  For radar translations are done so fast, milliseconds, that a new processor, regardless of it being faster, won't add any benefit at all.  Only thing it could add is that the processor would be more powerful enough to run multiple tasks at once compared to the old one.  But if it fails (which actually, smaller transistor processors have higher failure rates compared to the older 180nm tech), it would take a lot with it.

I asked my father this same question a few years ago, since he worked for Sperry and IBM (when working on processors and other IC for military and civil tech) and his statement is that even though the new may be faster, it is in a lot of cases more prone to failures as well as provides little to no need of tech.  Hence why they went with a lot of slower, older MIPS and RISC processors over the more advanced CISC processors at the time.

Funny thing he told me, is that in the military, they have a huge backup of analog systems, old coil wrappings for memory, vacuum tubes and what not, for "just in case".

It cannot be that hard to build a replacement... Like I said, it doesn't have to be a "miracle processor". All it has to do, is improve the architecture etc and keep the optimized DSP design. An improved model could handle the same conditions, and EMP-resistance isn't a major challenge. My question to you, is why compromise? - I swore the F-35 used a newer chip, after all ,they wanted to upgrade the F-22's chip....

I agree with that... There should be multiple processing units and not just one, I never suggested otherwise... The ability to process information quicker, and multitask better (like you said), is very much an upgrade. More so when the radar systems themselves are getting more and more complicated. AESA radars always have hundreds of independent emitters/receivers, what is going to happen when they have thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands? That much information could overwhelm an older chip like that, especially if trying to resist jamming etc (switching bands etc). 

I should ask my father a similar question... He worked in both the hardware and software divisions of defense contractors for many years, and thankfully he continues to retain that knowledge. The chance of failure isn't much higher, if not lower... The advanced nature has less to do with reliability than production facilities and stable software and architectures etc. A die shrink + whatever else they'd do wouldn't destroy the chip....

For good reason....

The failure rate for newer processors is very high compared to the old.

That said, you need to find a reason to upgrade it.  In the end, if it runs better, but the difference is 20ms vs 1ms, then it is still beyond human comprehension to notice the difference.  Like the lag between sunlight to the human eye.  Only area where it may be beneficial is energy consumption wise, but even then, is it that important?  They could make them more stronger from EMP effects, but the major issue is not the processor itself but the transistors.  Smaller they are, the harder it is to shield them apparently.  Radar's are actually not becoming more advanced.  These AESA radar's are very similar design and development since the 80's.  When my father installed AESA radar in the Dew Lines to replace the PESA, he stated it was a nightmare (and not needed as the PESA was far more accurate in its readings due to how the energy is used) and the AESA was not ready technically.  So really, it is just improvements in various areas since then, but still the same technology.  Korea is using more powerful processors to power multitude of devices while the west and Russia's aim is multiple processors for multiple applications.  This may change though and US may go that route, cause it could reduce costs and logistics.  But could also increase issues in other areas.

It is all a give and take really.  You could actually have all new processors for these devices, but it comes down to need vs want.  It is like in the civil market.  The average person won't even use the full power of a core i3, let alone a Core i7.  Heck, most programs cannot take advantage of the multicores, let alone the architecture itself.  But people still purchase it anyway.  The military on the other hand are far more interested in the use of the device more so than the want.  But there are cases where there is total bastardization of programs (F-35 is newest example), so who knows.

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Meh, if the processor works, stick with it.  The other aspect is that the Intel processor, much like the Elbrus one, has been tested for extreme conditions of electromagetnic pulses to prevent major damages to it (either that or go back to vaccum tubes for everything) and has been in production for a lot longer (MCST one is actually quite new), thus making it a lot cheaper than another one that could be faster, but provides no added benefit.  Same processor is being used for F-35 as well.

It goes back to the old question: Would one computer to power all on an aircraft be better/cheaper than multiple computers for various gadgets in an aircraft?  In this case, I would the latter be better since if the computer fails, it wont take everything with it.  For radar translations are done so fast, milliseconds, that a new processor, regardless of it being faster, won't add any benefit at all.  Only thing it could add is that the processor would be more powerful enough to run multiple tasks at once compared to the old one.  But if it fails (which actually, smaller transistor processors have higher failure rates compared to the older 180nm tech), it would take a lot with it.

I asked my father this same question a few years ago, since he worked for Sperry and IBM (when working on processors and other IC for military and civil tech) and his statement is that even though the new may be faster, it is in a lot of cases more prone to failures as well as provides little to no need of tech.  Hence why they went with a lot of slower, older MIPS and RISC processors over the more advanced CISC processors at the time.

Funny thing he told me, is that in the military, they have a huge backup of analog systems, old coil wrappings for memory, vacuum tubes and what not, for "just in case".

It cannot be that hard to build a replacement... Like I said, it doesn't have to be a "miracle processor". All it has to do, is improve the architecture etc and keep the optimized DSP design. An improved model could handle the same conditions, and EMP-resistance isn't a major challenge. My question to you, is why compromise? - I swore the F-35 used a newer chip, after all ,they wanted to upgrade the F-22's chip....

I agree with that... There should be multiple processing units and not just one, I never suggested otherwise... The ability to process information quicker, and multitask better (like you said), is very much an upgrade. More so when the radar systems themselves are getting more and more complicated. AESA radars always have hundreds of independent emitters/receivers, what is going to happen when they have thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands? That much information could overwhelm an older chip like that, especially if trying to resist jamming etc (switching bands etc). 

I should ask my father a similar question... He worked in both the hardware and software divisions of defense contractors for many years, and thankfully he continues to retain that knowledge. The chance of failure isn't much higher, if not lower... The advanced nature has less to do with reliability than production facilities and stable software and architectures etc. A die shrink + whatever else they'd do wouldn't destroy the chip....

For good reason....

The failure rate for newer processors is very high compared to the old.

That said, you need to find a reason to upgrade it.  In the end, if it runs better, but the difference is 20ms vs 1ms, then it is still beyond human comprehension to notice the difference.  Like the lag between sunlight to the human eye.  Only area where it may be beneficial is energy consumption wise, but even then, is it that important?  They could make them more stronger from EMP effects, but the major issue is not the processor itself but the transistors.  Smaller they are, the harder it is to shield them apparently.  Radar's are actually not becoming more advanced.  These AESA radar's are very similar design and development since the 80's.  When my father installed AESA radar in the Dew Lines to replace the PESA, he stated it was a nightmare (and not needed as the PESA was far more accurate in its readings due to how the energy is used) and the AESA was not ready technically.  So really, it is just improvements in various areas since then, but still the same technology.  Korea is using more powerful processors to power multitude of devices while the west and Russia's aim is multiple processors for multiple applications.  This may change though and US may go that route, cause it could reduce costs and logistics.  But could also increase issues in other areas.

It is all a give and take really.  You could actually have all new processors for these devices, but it comes down to need vs want.  It is like in the civil market.  The average person won't even use the full power of a core i3, let alone a Core i7.  Heck, most programs cannot take advantage of the multicores, let alone the architecture itself.  But people still purchase it anyway.  The military on the other hand are far more interested in the use of the device more so than the want.  But there are cases where there is total bastardization of programs (F-35 is newest example), so who knows.

I'd bet you a hundred bucks that has everything to do with production and nothing to do with the chip itself... Production is tens of times larger than what it used to be.

You said it yourself, humans limit their effectiveness.... Thing is, as jets become more and moreover advanced, human pilots become more and more irrelevant. In a matter of decades, all militarized fighter aircraft with be a drone anyway...

The jets themselves are already capable of maneuvering by themselves (PAK-FA), and in that case they will need (and use) all the time they can get. Those milliseconds may not seem like a long time to a person, but they are a lifetime to a computer.

Radar systems have been getting more advanced, but more importantly, they are getting more complicated. Like I said, a 90's processing unit that runs on a 180 nm lithography (and is outdated in general) isn't going to be able to process the information from thousands of emitters and receivers consistently, never mind quickly. 

Shielding them has never been a problem, even on the newest and most advanced systems to date. I doubt a lithography shrink is going to significantly limit the processors shielding. 

Like I said... I don't support a single processing unit, but rather the more common multiple units for each system method... Upgrading the computational performance of those independent processors shouldn't be much of a hurdle, as mentioned before.

Today may not need a super powerful chip, but tomorrow's systems will.

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Meh, if the processor works, stick with it.  The other aspect is that the Intel processor, much like the Elbrus one, has been tested for extreme conditions of electromagetnic pulses to prevent major damages to it (either that or go back to vaccum tubes for everything) and has been in production for a lot longer (MCST one is actually quite new), thus making it a lot cheaper than another one that could be faster, but provides no added benefit.  Same processor is being used for F-35 as well.

It goes back to the old question: Would one computer to power all on an aircraft be better/cheaper than multiple computers for various gadgets in an aircraft?  In this case, I would the latter be better since if the computer fails, it wont take everything with it.  For radar translations are done so fast, milliseconds, that a new processor, regardless of it being faster, won't add any benefit at all.  Only thing it could add is that the processor would be more powerful enough to run multiple tasks at once compared to the old one.  But if it fails (which actually, smaller transistor processors have higher failure rates compared to the older 180nm tech), it would take a lot with it.

I asked my father this same question a few years ago, since he worked for Sperry and IBM (when working on processors and other IC for military and civil tech) and his statement is that even though the new may be faster, it is in a lot of cases more prone to failures as well as provides little to no need of tech.  Hence why they went with a lot of slower, older MIPS and RISC processors over the more advanced CISC processors at the time.

Funny thing he told me, is that in the military, they have a huge backup of analog systems, old coil wrappings for memory, vacuum tubes and what not, for "just in case".

It cannot be that hard to build a replacement... Like I said, it doesn't have to be a "miracle processor". All it has to do, is improve the architecture etc and keep the optimized DSP design. An improved model could handle the same conditions, and EMP-resistance isn't a major challenge. My question to you, is why compromise? - I swore the F-35 used a newer chip, after all ,they wanted to upgrade the F-22's chip....

I agree with that... There should be multiple processing units and not just one, I never suggested otherwise... The ability to process information quicker, and multitask better (like you said), is very much an upgrade. More so when the radar systems themselves are getting more and more complicated. AESA radars always have hundreds of independent emitters/receivers, what is going to happen when they have thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands? That much information could overwhelm an older chip like that, especially if trying to resist jamming etc (switching bands etc). 

I should ask my father a similar question... He worked in both the hardware and software divisions of defense contractors for many years, and thankfully he continues to retain that knowledge. The chance of failure isn't much higher, if not lower... The advanced nature has less to do with reliability than production facilities and stable software and architectures etc. A die shrink + whatever else they'd do wouldn't destroy the chip....

For good reason....

The failure rate for newer processors is very high compared to the old.

That said, you need to find a reason to upgrade it.  In the end, if it runs better, but the difference is 20ms vs 1ms, then it is still beyond human comprehension to notice the difference.  Like the lag between sunlight to the human eye.  Only area where it may be beneficial is energy consumption wise, but even then, is it that important?  They could make them more stronger from EMP effects, but the major issue is not the processor itself but the transistors.  Smaller they are, the harder it is to shield them apparently.  Radar's are actually not becoming more advanced.  These AESA radar's are very similar design and development since the 80's.  When my father installed AESA radar in the Dew Lines to replace the PESA, he stated it was a nightmare (and not needed as the PESA was far more accurate in its readings due to how the energy is used) and the AESA was not ready technically.  So really, it is just improvements in various areas since then, but still the same technology.  Korea is using more powerful processors to power multitude of devices while the west and Russia's aim is multiple processors for multiple applications.  This may change though and US may go that route, cause it could reduce costs and logistics.  But could also increase issues in other areas.

It is all a give and take really.  You could actually have all new processors for these devices, but it comes down to need vs want.  It is like in the civil market.  The average person won't even use the full power of a core i3, let alone a Core i7.  Heck, most programs cannot take advantage of the multicores, let alone the architecture itself.  But people still purchase it anyway.  The military on the other hand are far more interested in the use of the device more so than the want.  But there are cases where there is total bastardization of programs (F-35 is newest example), so who knows.

I'd bet you a hundred bucks that has everything to do with production and nothing to do with the chip itself... Production is tens of times larger than what it used to be.

You said it yourself, humans limit their effectiveness.... Thing is, as jets become more and moreover advanced, human pilots become more and more irrelevant. In a matter of decades, all militarized fighter aircraft with be a drone anyway...

The jets themselves are already capable of maneuvering by themselves (PAK-FA), and in that case they will need (and use) all the time they can get. Those milliseconds may not seem like a long time to a person, but they are a lifetime to a computer.

Radar systems have been getting more advanced, but more importantly, they are getting more complicated. Like I said, a 90's processing unit that runs on a 180 nm lithography (and is outdated in general) isn't going to be able to process the information from thousands of emitters and receivers consistently, never mind quickly. 

Shielding them has never been a problem, even on the newest and most advanced systems to date. I doubt a lithography shrink is going to significantly limit the processors shielding. 

Like I said... I don't support a single processing unit, but rather the more common multiple units for each system method... Upgrading the computational performance of those independent processors shouldn't be much of a hurdle, as mentioned before.

Today may not need a super powerful chip, but tomorrow's systems will.

Nope.  Like I said, the difference is negligent.  You can argue with me all you want, but civil tech is nothing like military tech and there is a reason they go the routes they are.  There is a reason why they kept it and other countries order it.  And it is a combination of design and production that is causing the issues of the failure rates.

Have you seen the capabilities of drones?  And yes, they use much more advanced processors than what is used on an F-22.  They are garbage.  Response time is a response time regardless.  Latency, lag what not.

I can guarantee you that a DSP core at 180nm will outdo an Intel core i7 at 28nm in translating raw media data.  As well, the processor isn't just a DSP, but it is a multicore system with DSP.  The main core is used for running the programs, which is pretty much the display.  The rest is done through the DSP's.  I can tell you, you do not need a Core i7 to run a display.

But, I get what you are saying mike, and maybe if they create similar DSP with just more transistors, then it could be much better.  I agree, it will be better than the previous one in raw power.  But it all breaks down to needs vs wants.  Is the difference negligent?  I would say it is.  Hence why they keep using it.  But I am not saying you are wrong, I just think that latest and greatest isn't necessarily needed/better.

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Meh, if the processor works, stick with it.  The other aspect is that the Intel processor, much like the Elbrus one, has been tested for extreme conditions of electromagetnic pulses to prevent major damages to it (either that or go back to vaccum tubes for everything) and has been in production for a lot longer (MCST one is actually quite new), thus making it a lot cheaper than another one that could be faster, but provides no added benefit.  Same processor is being used for F-35 as well.

It goes back to the old question: Would one computer to power all on an aircraft be better/cheaper than multiple computers for various gadgets in an aircraft?  In this case, I would the latter be better since if the computer fails, it wont take everything with it.  For radar translations are done so fast, milliseconds, that a new processor, regardless of it being faster, won't add any benefit at all.  Only thing it could add is that the processor would be more powerful enough to run multiple tasks at once compared to the old one.  But if it fails (which actually, smaller transistor processors have higher failure rates compared to the older 180nm tech), it would take a lot with it.

I asked my father this same question a few years ago, since he worked for Sperry and IBM (when working on processors and other IC for military and civil tech) and his statement is that even though the new may be faster, it is in a lot of cases more prone to failures as well as provides little to no need of tech.  Hence why they went with a lot of slower, older MIPS and RISC processors over the more advanced CISC processors at the time.

Funny thing he told me, is that in the military, they have a huge backup of analog systems, old coil wrappings for memory, vacuum tubes and what not, for "just in case".

It cannot be that hard to build a replacement... Like I said, it doesn't have to be a "miracle processor". All it has to do, is improve the architecture etc and keep the optimized DSP design. An improved model could handle the same conditions, and EMP-resistance isn't a major challenge. My question to you, is why compromise? - I swore the F-35 used a newer chip, after all ,they wanted to upgrade the F-22's chip....

I agree with that... There should be multiple processing units and not just one, I never suggested otherwise... The ability to process information quicker, and multitask better (like you said), is very much an upgrade. More so when the radar systems themselves are getting more and more complicated. AESA radars always have hundreds of independent emitters/receivers, what is going to happen when they have thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands? That much information could overwhelm an older chip like that, especially if trying to resist jamming etc (switching bands etc). 

I should ask my father a similar question... He worked in both the hardware and software divisions of defense contractors for many years, and thankfully he continues to retain that knowledge. The chance of failure isn't much higher, if not lower... The advanced nature has less to do with reliability than production facilities and stable software and architectures etc. A die shrink + whatever else they'd do wouldn't destroy the chip....

For good reason....

The failure rate for newer processors is very high compared to the old.

That said, you need to find a reason to upgrade it.  In the end, if it runs better, but the difference is 20ms vs 1ms, then it is still beyond human comprehension to notice the difference.  Like the lag between sunlight to the human eye.  Only area where it may be beneficial is energy consumption wise, but even then, is it that important?  They could make them more stronger from EMP effects, but the major issue is not the processor itself but the transistors.  Smaller they are, the harder it is to shield them apparently.  Radar's are actually not becoming more advanced.  These AESA radar's are very similar design and development since the 80's.  When my father installed AESA radar in the Dew Lines to replace the PESA, he stated it was a nightmare (and not needed as the PESA was far more accurate in its readings due to how the energy is used) and the AESA was not ready technically.  So really, it is just improvements in various areas since then, but still the same technology.  Korea is using more powerful processors to power multitude of devices while the west and Russia's aim is multiple processors for multiple applications.  This may change though and US may go that route, cause it could reduce costs and logistics.  But could also increase issues in other areas.

It is all a give and take really.  You could actually have all new processors for these devices, but it comes down to need vs want.  It is like in the civil market.  The average person won't even use the full power of a core i3, let alone a Core i7.  Heck, most programs cannot take advantage of the multicores, let alone the architecture itself.  But people still purchase it anyway.  The military on the other hand are far more interested in the use of the device more so than the want.  But there are cases where there is total bastardization of programs (F-35 is newest example), so who knows.

I'd bet you a hundred bucks that has everything to do with production and nothing to do with the chip itself... Production is tens of times larger than what it used to be.

You said it yourself, humans limit their effectiveness.... Thing is, as jets become more and moreover advanced, human pilots become more and more irrelevant. In a matter of decades, all militarized fighter aircraft with be a drone anyway...

The jets themselves are already capable of maneuvering by themselves (PAK-FA), and in that case they will need (and use) all the time they can get. Those milliseconds may not seem like a long time to a person, but they are a lifetime to a computer.

Radar systems have been getting more advanced, but more importantly, they are getting more complicated. Like I said, a 90's processing unit that runs on a 180 nm lithography (and is outdated in general) isn't going to be able to process the information from thousands of emitters and receivers consistently, never mind quickly. 

Shielding them has never been a problem, even on the newest and most advanced systems to date. I doubt a lithography shrink is going to significantly limit the processors shielding. 

Like I said... I don't support a single processing unit, but rather the more common multiple units for each system method... Upgrading the computational performance of those independent processors shouldn't be much of a hurdle, as mentioned before.

Today may not need a super powerful chip, but tomorrow's systems will.

Nope.  Like I said, the difference is negligent.  You can argue with me all you want, but civil tech is nothing like military tech and there is a reason they go the routes they are.  There is a reason why they kept it and other countries order it.  And it is a combination of design and production that is causing the issues of the failure rates.

Have you seen the capabilities of drones?  And yes, they use much more advanced processors than what is used on an F-22.  They are garbage.  Response time is a response time regardless.  Latency, lag what not.

I can guarantee you that a DSP core at 180nm will outdo an Intel core i7 at 28nm in translating raw media data.  As well, the processor isn't just a DSP, but it is a multicore system with DSP.  The main core is used for running the programs, which is pretty much the display.  The rest is done through the DSP's.  I can tell you, you do not need a Core i7 to run a display.

But, I get what you are saying mike, and maybe if they create similar DSP with just more transistors, then it could be much better.  I agree, it will be better than the previous one in raw power.  But it all breaks down to needs vs wants.  Is the difference negligent?  I would say it is.  Hence why they keep using it.  But I am not saying you are wrong, I just think that latest and greatest isn't necessarily needed/better.

I'm not saying that they should use a civil processor, I already told you that... 

Yes, but they will get better in the future. My point was that computers use all the time that they can get.

Once again, I suggested that they use and upgraded DSP unit and not a civil one. DSP cores are purpose built, hence their capabilities. 

I'n not saying they should just add more transistors... An architecture change, plus a die and lithography shrink and it would be fine. I would say it isn't... Either way, the older ship will need to be replaced in the future, why not do it now?

kvs wrote:The only reason that one could conceive for using a CPU in a piece of military equipment is that it makes the programmer's job
easier.  It is also much cheaper than custom silicon.   But there is no actual need for the complexity or flexibility of a general
purpose microprocessor.   We are not running AI systems just yet.

The knee jerk negativity that is spewed at Russia by couch experts such as "they are still using vacuum tubes" just shows their
ignorance.  One thing that the USSR and Russia were and are good at is squeezing program performance out of limited hardware.
(This is also why I have deep suspicions about the high failure rate of Briz-M and other programming screwups such as Phobos-Grunt).
Custom code on custom hardware or some simple circuitry is more than good enough if it performs the intended task.  You are
not going to use your super expensive jet fighter as a freaking laptop.

The Navy plans to use Russian on future new Russian aircraft carrier deck version of the Russian fifth generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA project), said October 25, 2014 on the radio station "Echo of Moscow", Deputy Chief of the Russian Navy for Armament, Rear Admiral Victor Bursuc. "The development of the fleet provided shipbuilding program. It - Decked Su and MiG. planned and further development of the T-50 (in the embodiment, the deck)," - said Rear Adm. According to V. Bursuc, the Navy will receive the new aircraft carrier after 2030 year.

Sujoy wrote:NAVAL VERSION OF PAK-FA MAY SOON BECOME A REALITY

The Navy plans to use Russian on future new Russian aircraft carrier deck version of the Russian fifth generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA project), said October 25, 2014 on the radio station "Echo of Moscow", Deputy Chief of the Russian Navy for Armament, Rear Admiral Victor Bursuc. "The development of the fleet provided shipbuilding program. It - Decked Su and MiG. planned and further development of the T-50 (in the embodiment, the deck)," - said Rear Adm. According to V. Bursuc, the Navy will receive the new aircraft carrier after 2030 year.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1037048.html

2SPOOKY4U wrote:However, is there any information on the limit of the folding joint? How will this affect the stellar maneuverability?

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Could we see any other changes in sensors/range/weapon?

Viktor wrote:Kh-58USHK has finished state testing including with PAK-FA

PAK FA will receive a new missile to combat radar

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Article states that the missile is twice shorter, is it really or did the journalists mess up and its twice thinner thanks to the folding fins?
Also question, I have seen the video where the F-35 EODAS tracks a ballistic missile launch from 800 miles away. How impressive is this and could the Pak-Fa replicate the "supposed" feat and track the thing with EO and Radar systems as the F-35 did? Thanks, I have been trying to find some information on Soviet/Russian IRST performance.

GarryB wrote:

It is about as impressive as early IR AAMs locking on to the sun.

And almost as useful...  

Seeing an enormous heat source from great distances means little... especially when you can actually do little about it...

I have not read anything to suggest that the US is vastly ahead of Russia in terms of IRST... Russia certainly has them more widely deployed with the MiG-29 and Su-27 families and derivatives all equipped with integral IRSTs as well as the MiG-31 models too.

GarryB wrote:There are three transparency windows in the atmosphere where IR energy isn't absorbed and therefore can be used for detection over long ranges. They are called short, medium, and long wave IR and each has their advantages and disadvantages.

Equally as the technology improves and sensors get more sensitive performance increases too.

Not all IRSTs are the same.

Mike E wrote:... I meant that the technology within them is very similar, and doesn't differ significantly from system to system.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Of Course, that's not true. For example, the Russians have been using plasmonster based multispectral detection and amplification systems for eons, while they would probably never ever give the plasmonster based technology to even china, US or Israel, let alone others, at least not until the end of the current "world war".