PAK-FA, T-50: News #3

As soon as they use their independent radar system, their "stealth" will be thrown away. 

F-35 doctrine is to use AWACS to spot/track enemy aircraft, and then the AN/APG-81 for actual targeting and firing (it can use DAS to a lesser extent). This effectively means it can't actually do its' job against other aircraft without first revealing its' own location, and opening up the possibility of SARH. Problem is, every "stealth" fighter has the same exact issue.

kvs wrote:

I am not sure where you are getting this false dichotomy from.    The GaN parts are amplifiers.   They are orders of magnitude
more efficient at amplifying signals compared to anything deployed today.   This directly implies that they can increase the detection
of very weak signals for a given phased array size.

So basically you're thinking that GaN is only used in Receiver ? Well that's plain wrong.

We do have a niche application for LNA using GaN BUT The merit of this is that it can withstand higher power (Thus leakage from transmitter won't burn or degrade performance of this thing unlike older receiver stage) Try browse this :

http://www.triquint.com/products/p/TGA2612


From what read so far from phased array and radar related books so far.. Current main (and probably most touted application)Is to amplify transmitted signal. Converting whatever your waveform generator spit into RF power. This is where GaN Shines as it have higher breakdown voltage.. Thus it allow more power to be transmitted. Go browse materials about GaN Transmitters and see yourself

this is one example.
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/gallium-nitride-semiconductors


Now i wonder where you get your part in "sensitivity" ?

Mike E wrote:As soon as they use their independent radar system, their "stealth" will be thrown away. 

F-35 doctrine is to use AWACS to spot/track enemy aircraft, and then the AN/APG-81 for actual targeting and firing (it can use DAS to a lesser extent). This effectively means it can't actually do its' job against other aircraft without first revealing its' own location, and opening up the possibility of SARH. Problem is, every "stealth" fighter has the same exact issue.

My opinion is that stealth is more beneficial for the ground attackers or scouting, like B-2, F-117, PAK DA, RQ-170. It is not very useful in air-to-air combat, because in order to be fully "stealth" the fighter has to turn of its radar and only uses signal receiver to detect enemy units.

Air fight with turned off radars... quite a hard task.

kvs wrote:Gallium nitride detectors are revolutionary in terms of phased array sensitivity.   There is not much future left for "stealth".

You do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Low radar observability is about the insertion of the body into the clutter rejection threshold, and every radar systems, from weather to highway speed traps to military, have a clutter rejection threshold. Without that threshold, the receiver portion of the system would be overwhelmed with signals from cosmic background radiation (CBR) to cell phone to TV.

The fact of the matter is that you do not need Gn modules technology to have the sensitivity to detect 'stealth'. Just lower the clutter rejection threshold then sort thru every signal -- one by one -- to see if any of them matches a known radar signature of an aircraft.

Look at it this way...



A common layout for most aircrafts will have two wings, two horizontal stabs, and one vertical stab. This means there will be a common baseline radar signature for this layout. A delta will have a slightly different signature. If the data processing is sophisticated enough, the system can identify the airliner down to the manufacturing origin. We have been doing this for decades with jet engines signatures.

When an aircraft is deliberately planformed to minimize radar returns, that does not mean that common layout radar signature disappeared. It just mean all structures on this aircraft that contributes to that common signature have individual radar returns that are the same level as that of background clutter. The problem is to isolate this cluster of commonly known -- but very low amplitude -- signals out of background clutter. Depending on array size, beamwidth, and data processing capability, the common beamwidth of 3-5 deg will be very time consuming over a volume of search area, but increasing the beamwidth may overload the data processor. All the while the 'stealth' attacker is approaching at several hundreds km/hr and may exploit ground clutter returns to further complicate problems for the seeking radar.

But you are free to believe that 'stealth' is worthless if you want. I hope more and more of the Russian military takes after you.

Stealth is on first place something which was , you can believe or not, used from Pentagon, like Magic Formula for solution of one large problem which USA always had towards USSR(such as Today Russia, by words of many distinctive USAF generals) Russia have most powerfull SAM system (not like specific model) but System As a whole , and that is situation from middle of 60'ths which isn't changed to much in present day.... So Stealth was seen like one of usable add on for penetration of those SAM systems, but until this day he shown only one thing a large gap between what the Pentagon advertised for three decades and the actual results achieved in the field of real Stealth features or levels, more accurate name is LOW low observable vehicles, even very low observable isn't achieved, and not exactly on the basis of which he received, the amount of money that in fact no one does not know, especially after 9/11 and the destruction of the Pentagon rooms where they kept data on large-scale embezzlement of money on various projects exactly like STEALTH is like.My point is that LOV(low observable vehicle) have for certain advantage over not L.O.V, but problem is that Stealth is almost something like Making shields and bullets which need to penetrate that shield, I make Shield which neither one old bullet can penetrate , but then for several months somebody make bullet which penetrate that shield, Because of that  Russian approach to Stealth is much more realistic,because if somebody knows ways how to see and lock STEALTH plane that will be Russians,  when we talk about STEALTH achieved first whit shaping the object, then whit use of composite material and various RAM materials , like is Graphen etc, they know that high percent of stealth can be achieved only by electro magnetic means, which simple instead of plane for radars will be empty air, They was experimented(and they still do) whit electro-magnetic and quantum physics which can made any Flying object on certain amount of time to made completely nonvisible for radars...So no body say that idea that something become nonvisible for enemy radars is bad, or that Russian not believe in concept it self, they just have opinion that whit means by which today is achieved in reality very small percent of Stealth and usual by very high price for many equally and more important characteristic of Plane, best proof is F22 and F35, both planes have high percent of "Stealth" characteristic, and both pay heavy price because of same F22, by almost War worthless shape in which they will find it self after extremely short time of engagement, and almost non posible  badly needed maintenance into field conditions, until for F35 already showing that he will have same problem in ratio of Hour of War fly engagement : maintenance....Why, because from one side they because of Stealth was constructed from materials which made him extremely vulnerable  plane "for close support to the infantry" Second he by the latest estimate of the main people in charge of testing and assessment (Gen.Bogdan), will not be allowed to fly the missions without fighter escort, maybe he is Stealthy, but Escort isnt , all in all altogether slowly becoming one more logistic nightmare, and do not be fooled by the fact that all members of NATO ordered by some F35, they simply must to. end the story. And for the end, Russians is also hope that US and NATO will by more and more "Stealth" plane believe me.
P.S
Clutter rejection of enemy radar, Yes that is Holly Grail,Problem is that you do not mention that Threshold one sophisticated Radar can change in matter of 0.05 seconds like Gama D in Network whit extreme L Band NEBO-M and Several most powerful stationary Voronez type of Deep Horisont -hemisphere radars Active-Semi Active-Passive (chose mode which you wish)And i hardly mention 2% of all modern means for detection of flying objects on the sky over Russia. , second and most important thing, USA by they National Strategy wrote in the middle of 70'ths, that against which kind of enemy will fighting in the end of XX and beginning of XXI century, mostly the wars against "highly" inferior enemy's, which have not neither one really effective means for Air Defence, if we talk about Air Planes usually number ratio was hilarious something like 100:1, if we talk about SAM's in 99% they have in best case Russian SQUARE from begining of 60'ths, but never the less in Serbia one of this was SEE f-117, not pure luck , or any of that, They was Seen, Lock On and Shot down f-117, now you can ask how Iraqi crew wasn't shot any of, or Libya or...Because Serbian Army by they training was light year ahead towards all those arab Army's and they simply was know how to squeeze maximum from system by which they operate, and will for giving they life if that is necessary(because wasn't odd that same crew had more successful hits then whole Iraqi Army together) And make compare , if one Serbian crew was able to shot down four enemy Air Planes(between them is one smaller Stealth and by some Source also Big MF also Highly Stealth, but because for that one in Belgrade Museum of Air forces do not have any parts like they have of F-117)those one we will not count, if they was see F-117, Can You Imagine capability of Russian Air Defence i will repeat several US navy Intelligence officers was said that situation from midle of 70'ths is almost wasn't change, like then , Russian today have one of most formidable Air defence in the world, . End of Story.

havok wrote:

kvs wrote:Gallium nitride detectors are revolutionary in terms of phased array sensitivity.   There is not much future left for "stealth".

You do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Well, your text below does not back up this bold claim in any way.

Low radar observability is about the insertion of the body into the clutter rejection threshold, and every radar systems, from weather to highway speed traps to military, have a clutter rejection threshold. Without that threshold, the receiver portion of the system would be overwhelmed with signals from cosmic background radiation (CBR) to cell phone to TV.

You are using a long winded way to talk about signal to noise ratio.   The trick here is that the emissions from the target of your initial
irradiation are correlated in time and not randomly distributed.   There goes most of the "clutter".

The fact of the matter is that you do not need Gn modules technology to have the sensitivity to detect 'stealth'. Just lower the clutter rejection threshold then sort thru every signal -- one by one -- to see if any of them matches a known radar signature of an aircraft.

How is increased sensitivity totally useless and unneeded?   That is a bizarre view you have there.   You accuse me of
not knowing anything but spew BS.   The GaN parts allow much higher discrimination of the signal in the "clutter".   They
increase the signal to noise ratio observing the same set of emissions compared to existing devices.  

Look at it this way...



A common layout for most aircrafts will have two wings, two horizontal stabs, and one vertical stab. This means there will be a common baseline radar signature for this layout. A delta will have a slightly different signature. If the data processing is sophisticated enough, the system can identify the airliner down to the manufacturing origin. We have been doing this for decades with jet engines signatures.

You are lost at sea and think that re-emission of incident EM energy is somehow of no importance.   The geometry of the object
is not the only thing that is relevant in this problem.   Increasing the sensitivity of your EM measuring device allows you to do more
with the re-emitted EM energy, starting with being able to detect it.   EM wave scatter was never the point of my posts.

When an aircraft is deliberately planformed to minimize radar returns, that does not mean that common layout radar signature disappeared. It just mean all structures on this aircraft that contributes to that common signature have individual radar returns that are the same level as that of background clutter. The problem is to isolate this cluster of commonly known -- but very low amplitude -- signals out of background clutter. Depending on array size, beamwidth, and data processing capability, the common beamwidth of 3-5 deg will be very time consuming over a volume of search area, but increasing the beamwidth may overload the data processor. All the while the 'stealth' attacker is approaching at several hundreds km/hr and may exploit ground clutter returns to further complicate problems for the seeking radar.

Again, this has nothing to do with the point of my posts.  I am talking about detecting re-emission of EM in different frequency ranges.  
You are throwing a bunch of 1940s primitive monochrome backscatter concepts in response to my post that are totally irrelevant.

But you are free to believe that 'stealth' is worthless if you want. I hope more and more of the Russian military takes after you.

You should pick up some reading comprehension first before sneering.

kvs wrote:

How is increased sensitivity totally useless and unneeded?   That is a bizarre view you have there.   You accuse me of
not knowing anything but spew BS.   The GaN parts allow much higher discrimination of the signal in the "clutter".   They
increase the signal to noise ratio observing the same set of emissions compared to existing devices.  

You clearly need some more supplemental material.

Here's an E-book about GaN..by Qorvo and Tri-Quint.

http://www.qorvo.com/gan-for-dummies

Free to download.

According to the latest schedule, T-50-5R should make the first flight of 22.08., Transfer OKB 06.09. OChK (wing parts) for T-50-7 should be transferred to Zhukovsky by 30.09. Meanwhile, during static testing of T-50-7 fuselage identified the need to strengthen the frame №23. Thus the timing of construction of T-50-6-2 significantly shifted. Now, the first flight will take place on October 5 and the transfer to OKB - 28 December. Such a large gap between these dates is due to the fact that the first plane that will have a fully applied RAM (!). T-50-8, respectively, shifts to 2016.

Stealthflanker wrote:

kvs wrote:

How is increased sensitivity totally useless and unneeded?   That is a bizarre view you have there.   You accuse me of
not knowing anything but spew BS.   The GaN parts allow much higher discrimination of the signal in the "clutter".   They
increase the signal to noise ratio observing the same set of emissions compared to existing devices.  

You clearly need some more supplemental material.

Here's an E-book about GaN..by Qorvo and Tri-Quint.

http://www.qorvo.com/gan-for-dummies

Free to download.

what about wireless curent?

well in transistor you get high density curent by two ways: either few electrons but faster speed either lots of electrons but low speed. something between would be better

how about combining a transistor with other kind of electronic element ?

high speed electrons you get when the distance between the atoms is small because the coulomb force of the protons atract the electrons that are coming. also i dont know if with lots of protons their coulomb force is combined. well it is but same distance. maibe with a power line maked like a transistor the speed of electrons would increase.

and is about the road block of electrons. the voltage must be proportional with the protons in the line to get a smooth electron flow

You just had 4 post in row all posted within an hour of each other. What is wrong with editing and post all of it in one go?

Berkut wrote:You just had 4 post in row all posted within an hour of each other. What is wrong with editing and post all of it in one go?

Be gentle, he has schizophrenia.

Berkut wrote:Meanwhile, during static testing of T-50-7 fuselage identified the need to strengthen the frame №23. Thus the timing of construction of T-50-6-2 significantly shifted.

Berkut, have they said anything about the RAM coating for the T 50? I read in a Belarusian newspaper Звязда, that Sukhoi is working on a new gen RAM that will be far more effective in reducing the RCS compared to the RAM used in the F 35.

Nope, i haven't really heard of any substantial info at all tbh. As to the Belarussian newspaper, how would they know? That question goes two ways;

- How would they know that Sukhoi is working on RAM that is better than F-35's or Sukhoi's RAM's characteristic.
- How would they know how good or bad F-35's RAM is.

Dik_A, an insider that work on pre-flight station at KnAAZ has mentioned that the RAM he has seen has been "fairly dark". But that is basically all i have heard about it.

Berkut wrote:Nope, i haven't really heard of any substantial info at all tbh. As to the Belarussian newspaper, how would they know? That question goes two ways;

- How would they know that Sukhoi is working on RAM that is better than F-35's or Sukhoi's RAM's characteristic.
- How would they know how good or bad F-35's RAM is.

Dik_A, an insider that work on pre-flight station at KnAAZ has mentioned that the RAM he has seen has been "fairly dark". But that is basically all i have heard about it.

thanks a lot.

BTW Any info on internal weapon bay development ? Im curios on whether PAKFA already conduct weapon release test from internal bay.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Berkut wrote:Nope, i haven't really heard of any substantial info at all tbh. As to the Belarussian newspaper, how would they know? That question goes two ways;

- How would they know that Sukhoi is working on RAM that is better than F-35's or Sukhoi's RAM's characteristic.
- How would they know how good or bad F-35's RAM is.

Dik_A, an insider that work on pre-flight station at KnAAZ has mentioned that the RAM he has seen has been "fairly dark". But that is basically all i have heard about it.

thanks a lot.

BTW Any info on internal weapon bay development ? Im curios on whether PAKFA already conduct weapon release test from internal bay.

PAK-FA has been flying with lots of external munitions that look to be serial production models, Kh-31, etc.

In my humble opinion, the reason why we have not seen the internal weapon bay in action is because the weapons developed are either not ready, or information denial portion of the Russian military has decided to make an appearance.

Berkut wrote:That question goes two ways;

- How would they know that Sukhoi is working on RAM that is better than F-35's or Sukhoi's RAM's characteristic.

They were quoting sources from Sukhoi.

Berkut wrote:- How would they know how good or bad F-35's RAM is.

According to them(or at least what they heard from Sukhoi) the F 35 jet itself is constructed out of a type of RAM, and there is also a radar absorbent paint. The panel sealant streamlines the panels, and prevents the radar emissions from locking onto a gap in the panels. On some panels where RAM can't be used on the F-35, mesh wires are placed between layers of composit and a voltage is applied to defeat attempts at detection.

See this picture below,you can clearly see that certain panels (ladder) have unfilled gaps and others are filled.

Sounds like reasonable critique, but that is a problem for any design. F-22 and B-2 also have moving panels so there is always bound to be gaps. Do you have an online version of the article or could scan it?

Berkut wrote:Sounds like reasonable critique, but that is a problem for any design. F-22 and B-2 also have moving panels so there is always bound to be gaps. Do you have an online version of the article or could scan it?

Yes, it seems the RAM for the F 35 is better than the RAM used in the F 22, which explains why the USAF wants to use F 35s RAM on the F 22.

I am currently not in Minsk so I don't have the hard copy handy. Nonetheless, according to the newspaper the choice of RAM was influenced by several factors. You will find the reasons here

http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/6246/03sep_Yuzcelik.pdf?sequence=1

Some more sweet, sweet info from our infamous leaker;

Плановые сроки изготовления опытных самолётов 2-го этапа:
Т-50-8 - передача на ЛИС до 01.10.2015, первый полёт - до 01.11.2015, передача ОКБ - до 01.02.2016.
Т-50-9 - стыковка фюзеляжа - сентябрь 2015, передача на ЛИС до 01.01.2016, первый полёт - до 01.02.2016, передача ОКБ - до 01.05.2016.
Т-50-10 - стыковка фюзеляжа - ноябрь 2015, передача на ЛИС до 01.03.2016, первый полёт - до 01.04.2016, передача ОКБ - до 01.07.2016.
Т-50-11 -стыковка фюзеляжа - январь 2016, передача на ЛИС до 01.05.2016, первый полёт - до 01.06.2016, передача ОКБ - до 01.09.2016.

Planned deadlines for prototypes of aircraft of the 2nd stage:
T-50-8 - transfer to LIS (pre-flight station) until 01.10.2015, first flight until 01.11.2015, transfer OKB to 01.02.2016.
T-50-9 - the fuselage joining - September 2015, transfer to the LIS until 01.01.2016, the first flight to 01.02.2016, transfer OKB to 01.05.2016.
T-50-10 - the fuselage joining is November 2015, transfer on to LIS 01.03.2016, the first flight to 01.04.2016, transfer OKB to 01.07.2016.
T-50-11 -the fuselage joint is January 2016, transfer on to LIS 01.05.2016, the first flight to 01.06.2016, transfer OKB to 01.09.2016.

Berkut wrote:Some more sweet, sweet info from our infamous leaker;

Плановые сроки изготовления опытных самолётов 2-го этапа:
Т-50-8 - передача на ЛИС до 01.10.2015, первый полёт - до 01.11.2015, передача ОКБ - до 01.02.2016.
Т-50-9 - стыковка фюзеляжа - сентябрь 2015, передача на ЛИС до 01.01.2016, первый полёт - до 01.02.2016, передача ОКБ - до 01.05.2016.
Т-50-10 - стыковка фюзеляжа - ноябрь 2015, передача на ЛИС до 01.03.2016, первый полёт - до 01.04.2016, передача ОКБ - до 01.07.2016.
Т-50-11 -стыковка фюзеляжа - январь 2016, передача на ЛИС до 01.05.2016, первый полёт - до 01.06.2016, передача ОКБ - до 01.09.2016.

Planned deadlines for prototypes of aircraft of the 2nd stage:
T-50-8 - transfer to LIS (pre-flight station) until 01.10.2015, first flight until 01.11.2015, transfer OKB to 01.02.2016.
T-50-9 - the fuselage joining - September 2015, transfer to the LIS until 01.01.2016, the first flight to 01.02.2016, transfer OKB to 01.05.2016.
T-50-10 - the fuselage joining is November 2015, transfer on to LIS 01.03.2016, the first flight to 01.04.2016, transfer OKB to 01.07.2016.
T-50-11 -the fuselage joint is January 2016, transfer on to LIS 01.05.2016, the first flight to 01.06.2016, transfer OKB to 01.09.2016.

So the PAK-FA program looks like it is picking up the pace very soon.

Thanks for the updates Berkut, so 50-6-2 should fly in October and 50-8 in November. Just to clarify as i kinda got slack on the subject, is 6-2 to full second stage configuration or is sort of a transitional airframe?