Posted on otvaga, found docs about Armata soft-kill APS.
System type is reffered as SPN (anti-targeting system). Kit have 4 integrated sensors (multispectral) of working rocket engines and laser illumination detectors. 4 detectors combined create full coverage of upper hemisphere of vehicle. SPN was designed to not give away vehicle when it was turned on and working, so it uses only passive sensors.
On scheme 1 is detectors, 2 are PPU (rotatable launchers) and 3 are 2 vertically aimed PUs (stationary launcher).
Few more shots from the autumn trips with a new phone.
The so-called Mácha lake and the countyside of the Česká tabule vulcanic hills in the northern Bohemia. Bezděz castle can be seen on the very right, Ralsko vulcanic mountain with another (small) castle ruin on the top is on the very left. In between there is Ještěd mountain barely visible on the horizont.
The land of castles. The view is taken from the ruins of a small Oltářík castle towards the magnifficent Házmburk castle (the two towers on the right) and on the left there is another castle ruin called Košťálov. The low hill in the very middle of the screen is Říp - a mythical hill of our history, according to an ancient legend the Slavic tribe led by an elder Čech (Czech) kept travelling until they stopped at the hill, the elder climbed on the top and decided to settle around it. Somewhere under the mist behind Říp you could find Prague.
The very same day and a view from my absolute favourite place - the cliffs of Lipská mountain.
General Dynamics UK have created a virtual expo complete with a 3D model viewer for Ajax and Foxhound: https://gdgoesvirtual.com/ls/event.html
Password = GD2021
Interesting things like an electronic drive system for Foxhound:
Some small correction regarding British thermal imagers. Some time ago it was revealed by BAE Systems that the Challenger 2 was still using a thermal imager based on the Common Modules. However these are not identical with the US-German Common Modules (i.e. with 60 x 1, 120 x 1 and 180 x 1 detector arrays dependening on application) but rather based on the UK Thermal Imaging Common Modules (aka UK TICM). There were two classes of the UK TICM - the TICM Class 1 for man-portable thermal imaging devices using a multi-element photoconductive array and the TICM Class II based on the SPRITE (Signal Processing In The Element) detectors.
From what I've found, the TICM Class II uses 8 SPRITE detectors, though experimental variants with 16 and 24 SPRITE detectors were also developed. Compared to conventional detector units, a SPRITE detector is significantly longer along the scan axis and is biased in so that the carrier drift velocity exactly matches the scan velocity - so when scanning each "pixel" is measured using the complete length of the detector, which is accumulated using an electrical current at the read out region near the end of the detector. This way the signal integration is done in the detector unit, eliminating the need for additional circuitry for time delay and integration (TDI).
a) is the "Horned OctoSPRITE" as fitted to the UK TICM Class II.
Functioning principle
Images from here.
I guess when speaking of pure detector technology, one could argue that the SPRITE detectors allow the UK TICM Class II to kind of act like a 1.5 generation thermal imager, but without needing the additional circuitry of a true second generation device. I.e. a sensor unit with 8 SPRITE detectors requires 24 connections to the circuitry while an equivalent thermal sensor with 64 elements (in an 8 x 8 array) would require 65 connections. The big downside of the TICM Class II is the fact, that apparently only systems with just 8 SPRITE detectors were fielded, hence there is a need for much faster scanning (movement of mirrors and/or prisms to shift the image section that is being "viewed" by the thermal imaging sensor), which more or less eliminates the advantages in image quality gained from the longer sensors (= longer exposure).
Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them out and I will be happy to correct them.
At any rate, the issues with APA's Zero One Comparison Table or "ZOCT" are severe and numerous. Here are some of the more egregious ones based on open source information:
The Air Power Australia "ZOCT" is wrong about the F35’s radar.
- Greater radar aperture is advantageous if all else is equal, but it is not in this case. For example, the ZOCT does not differentiate between the PESA technology in the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and the AESA technology used in the F35’s APG-81. The table does not adequately account for T/R module or LPI/LPD performance, electronic attack or passive detection functionality, radar sub-modes, ECCM and so on. The ZOCT fundamentally ignores the comparative technological sophistication of each radar, with no analysis of their actual capabilities.
- The ZOCT also incorrectly portrays the APG-81 as having the least capable, “medium power aperture". Generally speaking, a larger radar array on an AESA allows for a greater number of track/receive (T/R) modules, which enhances the radar’s detection capability. The ZOCT table is likely linked to APA’s false claim that the APG-81 only has ~1200 T/R modules.
- In reality, the APG-81 has over 1600 T/R modules, which is higher than their (also incorrect) figure of 1500 for the F22’s APG-77. Note that they classify the APG-77 as a “high power aperture” at only 1500 modules, so - using APA's own reasoning - the APG-81 would qualify as a "high power aperture" as well.
- It is also worth noting that the updated T/R modules fitted to the Raptor’s radar in the APG-77(v)1 upgrade were GaA T/R modules derived from the F-35’s own APG-81 (and not the other way around). Objectively speaking, both radars are world leading in their own right and are generally regarded as offering similar performance overall. You can get a reasonable sense of their dimensional similarity below:
The relevance of side-looking AESA arrays is debatable for a jet with AN/AAQ-37, AN/ASQ-239 and MADL
Much like thrust vectoring, the importance of side-looking AESA arrays to the F35 is debatable, and AFAIK (contrary to how the ZOCT portrays the issue), there are currently no solid plans to install them in any of the aircraft in the table aside from the Su57. It should be noted that, due to size and space constraints, these “cheek” arrays potentially force the main radar array further forward into the nose-cone, limiting the volume it can occupy.
When dealing with LO opponents, it may well be more effective to retain a single larger and more powerful forward-facing array (to maximise detection range vs low RCS targets) while using 360 degree passive sensors and/or offboard donors (via datalink) to deal with contacts outside of the radar’s field of view. The presence or absence of side-facing radar arrays is arguably more a matter of CONOPS than an outright advantage in every case.
The ZOCT is wrong about supersonic weapons delivery
“Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air to air missiles, is a feature of all F35s”.
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s future engine growth
The potential for growth in the F35’s powerplant is far from limited. As a matter of fact, research into variable bypass engine technology has made the F35 a prime candidate for early implementation.
Pratt and Whitney have already proposed F135 Growth Options 1 and 2, with the latter introducing variable bypass technology that has the potential to decrease fuel burn by up to 20% and increase thrust by up to 15%. This would improve the jet's thrust to weight ratio from 1.07 at 50% fuel and a full weapons load to over 1.2. A completely new powerplant derived from technology found in the GE XA100 and/or PW XA101 variable bypass engines is another distinct possibility that is being actively explored.
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s combat ceiling
It is not less than 45,000ft as the table claims, but greater than 50,000ft.
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s RF stealth features
- The ZOCT’s description of the F35’s stealth features as “partial” is based on the disingenuous claim that its stealth shaping works best from the forward aspect, and is less effective in the beam and aft sectors. What APA neglects to acknowledge is that this is true for ALL the stealth aircraft in the table.
- In reality, both the F22 and F35 are all-aspect VLO designs, optimised to defeat the shorter wavelength fire control radars that are typically used to guide anti-aircraft missiles. Their actual radar cross-section values are of course extremely classified, but those few individuals that DO know what they are have long described them as being very comparable between the two aircraft.
- It is important to note that the ZOCT also completely neglects the vital importance of stealthy sensors and emissions control (EMCON) for stealth aircraft. Compared to the other aircraft in the table, the F35 has extremely sophisticated EMCON and passive sensing capabilities (LPI/LPD radar modes, MADL datalink, passive IR based MAWS, AN/ASQ-239, long range EOTS IRST) that are not adequately accounted for.
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s non-RF stealth features
The F35’s non-RF stealth features are at least as sophisticated as those found on any of the other aircraft in the table and probably superior to most, if not all (with rough parity perhaps, to the F22). They include:
- The use of divertless supersonic inlets with serpentine inlet ducts to block the line of sight to the engine’s hot interior from the forward hemisphere.
- The use of fuselage air “scoops” to mix cooler outside air with the engine exhaust so as to rapidly cool it and in turn reduce the IR signature of the engine plume
- The use of onboard fuel as a coolant alongside IR suppressant coatings (p4) to reduce the IR signature of the airframe itself
- Recessed positioning of the nozzle so that the jet’s tailfins block a direct line of sight to it in all but the aft-most sector.
- The use of a serrated nozzle derived from the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) program to further reduce the signature of the engine and assist with mixing cool air with the exhaust plume (p4). Note that this fundamental design approach has been subsequently replicated in new nozzles proposed for the J20, J31, Su-57 and Su-75.
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal fuel.
The amount of fuel the F35 carries is irrelevant on its own. Being able to fly further for longer is certainly advantageous though. Hence, the relevant stat here is range, and the range of the F35 is comparable to that of the F22 that APA endorses. Again, this will only improve with planned enhancements to the F35’s powerplant.
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal hard point stations
New F35s will have 6 internal hard points with the Sidekick weapons bay modification, not 4 as the ZOCT claims.
The ZOCT over-emphasises arbitrary aerodynamic features
It is true, for example, that the F35 does not feature super cruise or thrust vectoring, but neither feature is a requirement for its specified mission set. The general consensus is that the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16. Unlike either of those aircraft, however, the F35’s ability to carry all of its weapons, EW gear and sensors internally means that it maintains its aerodynamic performance at full combat loads. Current indications are that this kinematic profile is extremely capable.
Due to its flawed binary design, the ZOCT gives equal weighting to features that are not "equal".
Compare, for example, TVC to VLO. APA have long claimed that non-TVC teen series fighters like F16 and F/A18 variants (along with the F35) ought to be an easy meal for a late-model TVC equipped Flanker, especially in the low speed BFM domain where TVC should be most useful. After years of DACT conducted with Flankers of this type, though, the advantage provided by TVC may not be nearly as decisive as APA would have us believe:
Legacy Hornet Beats TVC Su-30MKM 3-0 in BFM
In reality, BFM is a highly nuanced, complex artform that favours the pilot who is most effective at playing to the strengths of their own aircraft. TVC may be useful here, but it does not appear to be a panacea - pilot training, experience and skill seem to be the real differentiators. Now compare this to the well documented effect that VLO has on a tactical aircraft’s lethality and survivability and it becomes clear that the weightings allocated to each category in the ZOCT are deeply flawed:
""I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."
“We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw the F-35A.”
"Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there. Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle. It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage. I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there. It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air. People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit." Retired US Marine Corps Maj. Dan Flatley
The ZOCT is missing important data
APA have also omitted a plethora of features that are just as (if not more) important than many of those listed in the ZOCT. For example
- Multi-spectral sensors - this refers to having RF sensors PLUS infra-red, EO and laser range finding. This is a feature that the F35 has and the F22, for example, does not.
- Spherical FLIR and missile cueing - AN/AAQ-37 provides the F35 with a permanent passive missile lock on every aircraft around it within visual range (and possibly further). This means the F35 can fire on an enemy aircraft regardless of where the F35’s nose is pointed or where the bandit is coming from - even if it is behind the F35. No other aircraft in the table (aside, possibly, for the J20 with its DAS clone) has an equivalent system.
- Sensor fusion - this refers to the capacity of the aircraft’s onboard computers to collect, assimilate, analyse and present data from the aircraft’s sensors to the pilot in a way that streamlines their workload and enhances their decision making. This data can also be shared via;
- An LPI, jam resistant, high throughput datalink - (eg. MADL on the F35 or the older IFDL on the F22) which, when combined with sensor fusion, allows for;
- Cooperative Engagement - the high quality of the F35’s sensor fused targeting data combined with the capacity of the MADL datalink allows it to share targeting information with other platforms (eg. Aegis vessels, Army/USMC MLRS units or other F35s) and subsequently use it to fire on desired targets without relying on their own onboard sensors.
- Cooperative EW - eg. cooperative jamming where members of a flight of aircraft can alternate/coordinate jamming emissions to enhance jamming effects and prevent hostile assets from pinpointing the source of the jamming.
- RF threat triangulation and geo-location (p6) - eg. networking the passive ESM equipment on multiple members of a flight of aircraft to passively triangulate and geolocate threat emitters like SAM sites, ISR assets and fighter aircraft.
- Cooperative IRST - eg. using a passive FLIR like EOTS cooperatively in conjunction with MADL provides another method of triangulating the location and range of hostile assets/aircraft without emitting any RF signals.
Suffice it to say that the F35’s unique combination of features is extremely potent:
Damn, this english word "battery" is so problematic... For both the S-3/400 and Patriot. Or all kinds of SAM system actually.
Partriot organisation structure is like this: You have a battalion hq, with an ICC (information and coordination center). This ICC commands 6 firing units (FU), and is linked to other battalions, AWACS, or radiotechnical units, but it has no radars on its own.
The FU is what we can call a "battery", it has an ECS (engagement control station), generators, launchers and a single MPQ-53 radar, for both target acquistion and tracking. If this single radar is lost, then the FU is useless. No redundancy here.
For the S-300P, it is a bit more complicated. Regimental hq has two main vehicles, a PBU(command post) and an RLO(main EW radar). RLO is the only such radar in the whole regiment! This Hq controls 4 divisions, all of which consist of an RPN fire control radar, a specialized NVO low altitude EW radar*, and 4 fire sections with 3 launchers each. We may call the division as "battery".
So basically this means, that the loss of the RLO means that the whole regiment loses its own general EW capability! Yes there are 4 NVO radars, but they are exclusively used for low altitude scanning, they have no other role. The RPN has an emergency scan mode, but it is extremely inefficient, and slow. And again, loss of an RPN means the loss of the whole division, no redundancy. The other RPNs of the regiment cant take its place.
* it is often mentioned that the S-300 is capable of "shoot and scoot" in 5 minutes. While it is true for most of the elements of the system, the NVO has a set up time measured in hours!
S-300V has similar problems, but lets not get into it, thats an army air defense system.
Thank you for sharing. Awesome video. They also mentioned Hollandse signaalapparaten (HS). A predecessor to the now called company Thales Netherlands. The IX83 system and the flycatcher system of HS seem to make the basis of the goalkeeper. Interesting to see the video.
Preps for Navy parade in St.Petersburg (will take olace on 26th). Saw most of those ships yesterday, they were parked between Liteiniy and Bolshoy Okhtinskiy bridges near Smolniy embankment
I got a reliable source in Dutch: https://marineschepen.nl/schepen/mks-180.html#specs
Another source: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/04/german-navy-outlines-mks-180-multi-purpose-combat-ship-future-capabilities/
The specifications that we know are:
Length: 155
Maximum displacement: 9000 ton
Crew: 110 + 70 boarders
Weapon systems:
127/64 LW Leonardo cannon. Vulcano might also be a possibility.
16 cell VLS for 64 ESM block 2
Naval Strike Missile
Rolling Airframe Missile
Sensors:
Thales AWWS most likely
Towed sonar
Helicopters:
2 NH90
or
1 NH90 and Skeldar V-200 drones
I wonder what type of design they will go for. If we look at F125. The amount of sensors is stunning. And the redundancy design is also interesting. Maybe some aspects of the F125 might flow over to MKS180.
Decided to take a short walk today. Didn't knew that it will be 4 hours long and will take place in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., thanks to small footpath and my curiosity. Had only my old phone with me, so photo quality is not great.
After 100 meters of walking found this place. Looking down in those tubes reveals big empty dark space below, half-filled with water. This thing is located between Soviet-build district and newly constructed housing project.
Gauntlet got a reaction from Eliz in Anti-air thread: Everything that goes up must come down, and we'll help you go down
Gauntlet got a reaction from Beer in General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.
