NIIP Bars and Irbis series of radar for Su-30/Su-35

[stealthflanker]

Anything proves the existence of LNA within N011M?

I dont think any functional radar can work without LNA. Because that is the one amplifying weak return signal from target. So N011M Bars should have it.

The question might better rephrased as "Where is the LNA ?" Where Bars have 2 parts of it.. One in the antenna another is within the LRU in fuselage.



The UHF Receiver in the antenna and the Low Frequency Receiver one is pretty much doing the LNA. The "2 stage" receiver like that is why Bars can have relatively low receiver Noise (3.5 dB) compared to mechanically scanned array (some 8 dB).

 

[Шурави1983]

I dont think any functional radar can work without LNA. Because that is the one amplifying weak return signal from target. So N011M Bars should have it.

The question might better rephrased as "Where is the LNA ?" Where Bars have 2 parts of it.. One in the antenna another is within the LRU in fuselage.

View attachment 823049

The UHF Receiver in the antenna and the Low Frequency Receiver one is pretty much doing the LNA. The "2 stage" receiver like that is why Bars can have relatively low receiver Noise (3.5 dB) compared to mechanically scanned array (some 8 dB).

Yeah, the one in TR. The most reliable source I found is Dr Carlo Kopp's Flanker Radars in BVR Air Combat, though not first-hand.

 

[Squirrel]

Yeah, the one in TR. The most reliable source I found is Dr Carlo Kopp's Flanker Radars in BVR Air Combat, though not first-hand.

Let us remind ...

''The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. The antenna is constructed using phase shifter and receiver 'stick' modules, a similar technology to early US AESAs.''

Flanker Radar Power Aperture Product​

Radar Type	Antenna Design	Av Power [kW]	PAAVE [dBWm2]	Pk Power [kW]	PAPEAK [dBWm2]	Range [NMI] 1 m2 RCS	LNA NF [dB]
N001 Myech	Twisted Cassegrain MSA	1.0	28.0	4.0	34.1	43.0 - 53.0 unspec	~9.0
N001VE	Twisted Cassegrain MSA	1.0	28.0	4.0	34.1	72.0 - 81.0 unspec	~9.0
N001VEP	Twisted Cassegrain MSA	1.0	28.0	4.0	34.1	72.0 - 81.0 unspec	~9.0
N001VE-Pero	Space Feed PESA	1.0	29.4	4.0	35.4	~102.0 unspec	~9.0
N011	Planar Array MSA	2.0	31.1	8.0	37.1	75.0 unspec	~9.0
N011M BARS	Hybrid ESA	1.2	28.9	4.8	34.9	~104.0 / 75.0 spec	3.0
N011M BARS	Hybrid ESA	1.6	30.1	6.5	36.2	~117.5	3.0
Irbis-E	Hybrid ESA	5.0	35.1	18.6	40.8	~153.0	3.5
Zhuk AS/ASE	AESA	est 16.3	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	~3.0

https://ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

 

[Aeria Gloria]

Yeah, the one in TR. The most reliable source I found is Dr Carlo Kopp's Flanker Radars in BVR Air Combat, though not first-hand.

I would be very careful about trusting any thing Carlo Kopp says
I wouldn’t be surprised if his website was funded purely to sell F-22 to Australian military lmao, which should also indicate the age of his ….. whatever it is he says I won’t call it “information.”

 

[Шурави1983]

I would be very careful about trusting any thing Carlo Kopp says
I wouldn’t be surprised if his website was funded purely to sell F-22 to Australian military lmao, which should also indicate the age of his ….. whatever it is he says I won’t call it “information.”

Nah, judging by the noise factor, he's right, nobody doubt it, and I myself don't doubt such claim. It's someone arguing with me about such design and I need a concrete proof for it.

 

[Aeria Gloria]

. Yea there are some correct numbers in his stuff. Along with wild ass guesses, graphics that make no sense, napkin math, assumptions. Becuase while he does show references they are often brochures, magazine articles, or just “JSC Sukhoi/Irkut/KnAApo.”

Which fine, for Russian stuff this is often best we have, but he doesn’t exactly go and tell you which number is from real reference and which ones he has pulled out of his pants.

I don’t trust him. And I know that isn’t an unusual stance for people to take with Carlo Kopp. Anything from his website that is not immediately obviously from external source I would not believe unless Properly supported by something else.

 

[F-2]

I do think it’s strange the noise figure regressed from bars to Irbis. I’m sure it’s possible there is some technical or reliability reason for that. However I would also believe that 3.5 was always the true number which become 3 class which became three. Thats issue with only having brochure figures, you just don’t know.

 

[Valodyana_80U]

I do think it’s strange the noise figure regressed from bars to Irbis. I’m sure it’s possible there is some technical or reliability reason for that. However I would also believe that 3.5 was always the true number which become 3 class which became three. Thats issue with only having brochure figures, you just don’t know.

Irbis's LNA noise level is reportedly only 2.5dB, but I cannot verify the source.

If 2.5dB is true, considering power supply losses, 3dB is possible, of course, this is purely speculation—until I find the source.