The SEWIP block III upgrade program. Fat fucks.Those latest ugly looking ones ? After the mod. ?
The AYR is (was) identical to the CFR. Therefore their orientation was 45 degrees apart. If you are referring to the use of higher power for better penetration of the jamming barrier, nobody uses wide sprectrum brute force jamming in the 21st century.To me, i still would want that third radar group. For conduct extreme level of jamming.
Some Arleigh Burke's have these afaik. Those latest ugly looking ones ? After the mod. ?
MAR-D is 1 axis scanning aesa, another axis is what is mechanically steered. (Vertical axis is scanned electronically).Too much information..
I barely understand
So Türkish AESA radars are not 2 axis?
Cenk-S and MAR-D?
Here is how the dual axis scan looks like! I would love to see how our radars working and emitting signals
Allah rızası için biri iki AESA radarın farkını çocuga anlatır gibi anlatsın.
Neden bize iki tane radar paneli lazım?
O zaman Cenk-S veya mar-D surface tarama yapamıyor? Tüm AESAlar multibeam ama en son teknoloji AESAlar dual axes multi beam.
View attachment 65753
AYR is ( was ) identical to the CFR. Therefore their orientation was 45 degrees apart from each other. If you are referring to use of higher power for better penetration through jamming barrier, nobody uses broadband brute force jamming in 21st century.
What looks like a radar on AB is actually jammers, planar array electronic warfare antennas.
MAR-D is 1 axis scanning aesa, another axis is what mechanically steered. (Vertical axis is electronically scanned).
CENK-S is two axis electronically steered with one axis being steered mechanically as well.
Both can scan the horizon-surface, the vertical electronical steering makes it better.
You need minimum 3 radars for 360 degrees coverage (also is about the sidelobes but not my field, i don't know)
I must have said it somewhere in the earlier pages, just because it can be done doesn't mean it's adequate. There is bare minimum and then there is the optimum point. Bare minimum is providing mid-course guidance via data links and tracking via UMAR; ideal point is using UMAR for long range detection, classification, using CFAKR for tracking, observing for munitions separation, also classification and providing mid-course guidance and alternatively tracking for low altitude small RCS targets such as gliding munitions or cruise missiles. The later is what an MFR does.Yep, i meant those jammer antennas, sorry. :/
@Heartbang that's the one, yep.
I read or watch somewhere, it was about last Siper-1 test afaik. The search radar guided the missile alone. At that time, it was said that the radar is so capable that: for these ranges (100km) it can give weapon grade track and guidance.
Maybe same thing is also happening for TF-2000.
SPY-6 is Yaprak sobiyetStill i cant understand what is difference between ÇAFRAD ( without AYR) and SPY-6? How SPY-6 could cover horizon-surface?
Bilal'e anlat demedim yavSPY-6 is Yaprak sobiyet
CAFRAD is Baklava
Both have pistachio, one has cream in it, but yields to be more expensive and requires mastery.
nobody uses broadband brute force jamming in 21st century.
Normally F18 should have 140 kVA total, unless pods have extra power sourceWait what? I thought noise jamming is the only practical option against modern AESA. (Due to their ability to switch frequency 1000 times per second, deceptive jamming/DRFM Jamming isn't very practical, no?)
Isn't that why AN/ALQ-249 has several hundreds KW power output?
Normally F18 should have 140 kVA total, unless pods have extra power source
This is how @AlterUnd (and yes, we are not the same person) explained the differences between some radar systems that appear to be the same to me. Beamforming things are beyond my knowledge but I googled to find out SPY 6V1 has a fair amount of cabinets with each holding several racks, can not imagine the cooling capacity combined with radar and these cabinets. I don't know the processing power of the TF-2000.Bilal'e anlat demedim yav
View attachment 65764
View attachment 65761
Mastery of Waveforming or beam forming?
Is it?
View attachment 65763
The difference is Adaptive digital beam forming?
Spreading a few hundred Kw over a wide spectrum results in a small amount of power at each frequency, and this would do nothing for a clutter-handling AESA radar. Just making a wild guess here, 'flattening the curve' would make it easier to handle.Wait what? I thought noise jamming is the only practical option against modern AESA. (Due to their ability to switch frequency 1000 times per second, deceptive jamming/DRFM Jamming isn't very practical, no?)
Isn't that why AN/ALQ-249 has several hundreds KW power output?
Ew, God forbid.and yes, we are not the same person
I'm sorry, but where are the crazy stabilisation requests from Aselsan and the demonstration of it? Why aren't the experiments carried out on a multi-axis table?
Aselsan's products are not directly bought and put on the platform, but they are "tested". What is the reason for this privilege?
Since when bearing R&D costs of a new system has been cheaper than acquiring what is available in the serial production line? Or why Targan is not going through similar tests as STAMP once did; this really confuses me as well. It can be cheaper, but it has to prove certain features during factory acceptance tests.From what I see OPV have a lot of cheaper, experimental and new solutions on them in general, so I think that's part of the intention? Because they are less critical and will mostly take on lower profile missions like against pirates etc. They are using it as an opportunity for development of developments perhaps. I think they were supposed to even use MKE 20mm CIWS at some point but they decided to have at least 1 reliable anti air system.