dark light

Sintra

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,001 through 3,015 (of 3,443 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: US Senate halts F-22 funding #2415831
    Sintra
    Participant

    Sin you must remember though that the Gripen benefited from a lot off the shelf technology… that wasn’t the case for the F-16 at the time.

    Point taken.

    in reply to: US Senate halts F-22 funding #2416165
    Sintra
    Participant

    And what would an F-16 cost if we only made 187 of them?

    Eric

    “Roughly” 60 million US Dollars for a total “unit program cost”, that´s what the Swedes “roughly” payed for a “roughly” equivalent aircraft (the Jas-39) for “roughly” the same numbers (~200 airframes) on “roughly” the same time frame of the ATF program…

    cheers

    in reply to: PLAAF; News and Photos volume 13 #2418215
    Sintra
    Participant

    FC-20 M-MRCA Emerges

    The first single-seat FC-20 prototype was rolled out by CAC last December
    By Prasun K. Sengupta

    China’s Sichuan-based Chengdu Aerospace Corp (CAC) and its affiliated 611 Institute has begun a hectic but structured flight-test programme for the FC-20 medium multi-role combat aircraft (M-MRCA), whose launch export customer is the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The PAF has an initial requirement for 36 single-seaters and four tandem-seat operational conversion trainers, and envisages a total requirement for 80 FC-20s distributed among four squadrons.

    The first single-seat FC-20 prototype was rolled out by CAC last December and it made its maiden flight last March. Derived from the CAC-built J-10A Vigorous Dragon M-MRCA, the FC-20 incorporates an under-nose modified lightweight air inlet, redesigned vertical tailfin, strengthened underwing inner pylons designed for carrying standoff precision-guided munitions (PGM) like the glide kit-equipped LS-6, nose-mounted infra-red search-and-track (IRST) system, a glass cockpit equipped with a holographic wide-angle heads-up display (HUD), a pair of inverted-gull wings (with the inner upper portion extending slightly downward, while the outer portion extending flat), a fixed in-flight refuelling probe, a large vertical tail, twin ventral stabilisers for providing greater stability at high angles of attack, and a single AL-31FN-M1 turbofan engine rated at 132.4kN thrust with afterburning. In August 2005 China had inked a USD 300 million contract with Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp to acquire initial 100 such engines. The entire R&D phase of the FC-20 is being carried out under the oversight of China’s state-owned China Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC).

    The FC-20 will be able to carry 4.5 tonnes of weapons payload, and will come equipped with 11 hardpoints for carrying a wide range of air combat missiles (both within-visual-range and beyond-visual-range) and PGMs. The FC-20’s performance parameters include a maximum combat radius of 2,540km (1,370nm) in a hi-lo-hi mission profile, or of 1,310km (710nm) in a lo-lo-lo mission profile when carrying a 1,810kg (4,000lb) weapons payload.

    The M-MRCA will have an empty weight of 9,750kg, maximum takeoff weight of 19,277kg, internal fuel capacity of 4,500kg, maximum speed of Mach 2 at high altitude and Mach 1.2 at sea level, takeoff run of 500 metres, combat radius of 1,100km, and a service ceiling of 18,000 metres. The FC-20 has a wingspan of 8.78 metres, overall length of 14.57 metres, height of 4.78 metres, and a gross wing area of 33.1 square metres. The airframe features high-quality welding, but is overwhelmingly of metallic construction, with composites accounting for only 12 per cent of the fuselage area.

    CAC and its affiliated 611 Institute are now preparing to roll-out a tandem-seat deep interdictor variant of the FC-20, which, like the single-seater, will be equipped with a laser target acquisition/designation pod, laser-/GPS-guided PGMs, as well as PL-9C within-visual-range and PL-12 beyond-visual-range air combat missiles built by the Luoyang Opto-Electro Technology Development Centre. Design of this variant of the FC-20 is derived from the J-10B operational conversion trainer that made its maiden flight on 26 December 2003.

    The FC-20’s tandem-seat variant will feature a stretched forward fuselage and a single-piece bubble canopy. Its dorsal spine will be enlarged to accommodate those avionics displaced by the rear cockpit. The PAF is widely expected to equip its FC-20s with the SELEX Galileo-built X-band Vixen 500E airborne active phased-array fire-control radar. The glass cockpit avionics suite will includes a wide-angle holographic HUD with up-front control panel and a video camera, twin monochrome AMLCD-based multifunction displays, a single colour AMLCD head-down display, infra-red sensors for a helmet-mounted sight, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, ring-laser-gyro-based inertial navigation system, air data computer, ARW-9101A radar warning receiver, Type 634 digital quadruplex fly-by-wire flight control system using a MIL-STD-1553B digital data bus, and a digital fuel management system and stores management system.

    The FC-20’s compound delta-wing configuration will offer two important aerodynamic qualities. The swept leading edge of the wing will stay ahead of the shock-wave generated by the FC-20’s nose during supersonic flight, thus making the compound delta-wing a very efficient aerodynamic wing shape for supersonic flight. The leading edge of compound delta-wing will also generate a massive vortex that will attach itself to the upper surface of the wing during high angle-of-attack (AoA) manoeuvres, resulting in very high stall points.

    [Full Feature/Report]

    Yes, and pig´s do fly…

    in reply to: F310 vs F100 #2028219
    Sintra
    Participant

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf

    LCF (DZP class) supposedly equipped in such a way as to be able to fire Tomahawk (though these have not been purchased: planned procurement of the missile got cancelled ). That pretty much rules out the Tactical length VLU as the standard VLU on these ships (unless a single strike length module were to be installed as the 6th VLU module, or – absent additional VLU modules – a tactical module were to be swapped out with a strike module. In both cases, however, there would either have to be below deck space available for the extra length of the strike module (7 feet worth > 1 deck), or an external enlargement (7 ft) would have to be built at the level of the main deck. Neither option is very likely.)
    See: here and here

    Wanshan

    The MK41 VLS on the De Zeven Provinzien class are indeed tatical lenght, no doubts on this one.
    I do have severall sources for this, including the page of Royal Schelde (http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_air-defence-and-comand-frigate.htm), several articles on a few magazines and a direct talk with two officers, one from the Koninklijke Marine and another one from the Marinha Portuguesa who visited the Ship (De Zeven Provinzien).
    You are Dutch, if you have any contact with a officer/sailor who has embarked on any on the LCF ships they are going to confirm what i am saying.
    When the Tac-Tom and SM3 were looked by the Koninklijke Marine, the solution was to install a single additional 8 cell Strike lenght MK41.

    in reply to: question about Boeing XF-36 stealthness #2434496
    Sintra
    Participant

    Yeah, that’s what I meant. If you’ve seen one, it looks like a fan stage, but it’s really not.

    Yes, they do look like the frontal fan stage of the engine.
    http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/134/radarblocker.jpg

    in reply to: question about Boeing XF-36 stealthness #2434657
    Sintra
    Participant

    I think he may have meant they don’t rotate like you’d expect a fan stage to.

    Oh, I see.
    That´s true.

    Cheers

    in reply to: F310 vs F100 #2028600
    Sintra
    Participant

    The RAN wanted CEC capability which i’m not sure the Sachsen class has. In addition, the F-100 is a much larger ship with 48 Strike length Mk.41 VLS rather then 32 Mk.41 which again, i’m not sure if they are strike length.

    I also don’t know how APAR compares with the AN/SPY-1D(V) that Hobart will be getting.

    One of the RAN AWD requirements was the AN/SPY-1, there was never the possibility of using the APAR/SMARTL (or something around Sampson/1850) combination.
    HDW offered a “F-124/SPY-1 Frankenship”, it was rejected.
    And the MK41 VLS on the “Sachsen” and “De Zeven Provinzien” are tatical lenght.

    Cheers

    in reply to: question about Boeing XF-36 stealthness #2434963
    Sintra
    Participant

    They put what was basically a fake, fixed set of fan blades in front of the engine, coated with RAM. The Super Hornet uses the same type of system.

    SOC

    The “Radar Blocker” blades in the Super Hornet (or the production F-32 had it won the JSF Competition) are not fixed. In certain flight conditions, when in vertical flight, or in post combustion, by example, they open to allow a maximum amount of air to enter the engines.
    This opens quite a few questions about the SH frontal RCS when flying in post combustion.

    in reply to: question about Boeing XF-36 stealthness #2435498
    Sintra
    Participant

    boeing aircraft choose chin air intake for XF-36 ,despite regard by some to be “unstealthness”,yet test show the aircraft has very low RCS.did boeing engineers coated the entire fan blade with RAM?

    You mean the X-32, right?

    http://www.stevemarkmanworld.com/resources/_wsb_459x353_X-32+$28Medium$29.JPG

    Here you go, it´s called “radar blocker”.

    “Aviation Week & Space Technology 03/19/2001

    Stealth Engine Advances
    Revealed in JSF Designs
    DAVID A. FULGHUM/ORLANDO, FLA. and WASHINGTON

    When Boeing revealed its full-scale JSF mockup at England’s Farnborough air show last summer, most observers were shocked to see what appeared to be the engine face placed a few feet behind the opening of the air intake. One of the basic rules of stealth design is that you find a way to keep radar beams from striking the rotating parts of an engine. Engine faces traditionally produce large, sometimes amplified, and distinct radar reflections that can be analyzed to identify the engine and aircraft.

    In a clever use of technology (a technique considered a proprietary secret by the two companies), Boeing and Pratt & Whitney worked together to add stealth to the inlet guide vanes to mask the fan blades behind them. The inlet vanes are variable and open to provide maximum air to the engine in vertical flight, but close to minimize radar reflections during flight at operational altitudes.

    in reply to: Hot Dog Typhoon thread III #2435539
    Sintra
    Participant

    21 Ankush,

    Typhoon numbers

    232 aircraft planned:
    Total RAF Forward Aircraft Fleet: 137 aircraft
    Seven Squadrons: 15 aircraft each (105 aircraft total)
    OCU: 24 aircraft
    OEU: 4 aircraft
    Falklands: 4 aircraft
    In-use reserves: 1 aircraft per squadron, 2 with the OCU (9 aircraft total)
    Attrition and reserve: 84 aircraft
    Total: 232 aircraft
    The 84 aircraft reserve would allow aircraft to be rotated in and out of service to balance flying hours across the whole fleet and to sustain the force through to its scheduled out-of-service date in 2029 (and likely well beyond).

    Number required to support smaller, five squadron force:
    Total RAF Forward Aircraft Fleet: 101-107 aircraft
    Five Squadrons: 15 aircraft each (75 aircraft total)
    OCU: 18-24 aircraft
    OEU: 4 aircraft
    Falklands: 4 aircraft
    In-use reserves: 1 aircraft per squadron, 2 with the OCU (7 aircraft total)
    Attrition and reserve: 62-64 aircraft
    Total: 170-178 aircraft

    It may be a coincidence that existing commitments (53 Tranche 1, + 67 Tranche 2 aircraft), + 40 aircraft from Tranche 3A, would come to 160 aircraft, very close to this total.

    Interestingly, CAS has given a Forward Aircraft Fleet figure of 123 aircraft.

    Jack

    That same number (123) has been “poping” up in my head.
    Now, if those five fighter sqn´s had 18 fighters each, instead of 15…

    in reply to: Hot Dog Typhoon thread III #2435751
    Sintra
    Participant

    It´s official, two RAF front line Typhoon sqn´s slashed. From seven to Five.

    (Hansard 6 July 2009 Column 558W):

    Bill Rammell: On current plans, once the RAF’s Typhoon fleet is at full strength it will consist of seven squadrons; five front line squadrons supported by an Operational Evaluation Unit and an Operational Conversion Unit. The distribution of Tranche 3 aircraft across these squadrons has yet to be decided.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090706/text/90706w0012.htm#column_558W

    Sintra
    Participant

    Which systems did they have that it took us decades to get??

    For starters, the R-73 Archer/HMS combination, and there are a lot of other valid examples.

    in reply to: This forum going down hill #2438464
    Sintra
    Participant

    Ah you mean The Sun and its famous page 3

    For those non-UK readers who may not know – WARNING – NSFW!

    Actually, that´s “UP” (something) the hill literature… :p

    in reply to: KC767, KC45 ….. Latest news! #2438475
    Sintra
    Participant

    Count the number of widebody Airbus planes that have lost their rudder in flight and compare to 767s.

    Oh, we have reached the funny ones…

    Now let´s rework that phrase

    “Count the number of widebody Boeing planes that have lost their rudder in flight and compare to 330s”

    (Never a Airbus 330 lost is rudder in flight, the same cannot be said of a few Boeing types, the 767 has a clean record on that department)

    Now, we could try to get some meaningfull “apples to apples” comparison between the 767 and the 330, like “number of accidents/number of hours flown” or “number of accidents/number of flown miles”, but thats one discussion that Boeing doesnt touch with a pole barge…

    in reply to: Skewed thinking or no thinking at Eurocopter? #2440006
    Sintra
    Participant

    Sorry that it has taken me so long to raise what has been my pet gripe for about 10 years or however long it is since I heard Eurocopter’s thinking on this. Is it just me who thinks that Eurocopter’s claim that the Tigre’s agility renders a cannon unnecessary is missing the point?

    This is a strange claim!

    The Tiger helicopter right from the beggining had a 30mm cannon equiped version.
    Even the Unterstützungshubschrauber Tiger (you got to love the Germans) version, the one without the gun, had some sensible ideas behind its requirements. That heli was suposed to fight a massive armoured Soviet advance across the Fulda Gap. The idea was blowing T-80´s by surprise/stealth, and avoid like hell getting into “shooting outs” with ZSU´s, so lets delete the gun (avoids trigger happy pilots getting blown by 23 mm bullets by spending too much time and being too close around enemy formations trying to kill anything with a gun) and use speed and AGILITY to get the “helloutathere” the fastest that you can.
    Eurocopter tried to sell a “no gun Tiger” to GB because of the original British requirements were still very much influenced by that “Fulda Gap Mindset”. After loosing that one to the Apache, Eurocopter learned is lesson and for the last decade has offered a multi-role, gun equiped, Tiger for export.

    I was forgeting, the French, the Aussies and the Spanish, all of them use cannon equiped Tigers. The German version, the UHT, doesnt have a “organical” cannon capability (but it can use underwing poded guns)

    http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/eurocopt/TigHAEf.jpg
    Spanish HAD Tiger

    http://image57.webshots.com/757/2/90/94/2885290940090154019tfnrVj_ph.jpg
    German UHT Tiger
    Cheers

Viewing 15 posts - 3,001 through 3,015 (of 3,443 total)