KS[172nautical miles] missile firing aircraft.
KS has been fired away thanks to vympels seeker help to novator.

AGAT… Vympel doesn´t build seeker´s…
And when, and where, was that live fire? I´m VERY curious on that one.

There are some huge misconception´s about the very famous “Russian Plasma Stealth”…
There was one system based on research of the Keldysh Research Center that, in theory, would encircle part of the airframe with some sort of “plasma radiation”. That work is dead for a pair of year´s, they even removed it from the site of KRC. In theory it was a nice idea, on practical terms… it was a bloody nightmare.
And then, there his the system that was shown to that great (even more famous than Russian Plasma) aviation Journo, Bill Sweetman, in 2003. That his the system that was/his being aplied to the “BM”. It´s a phisical barrier in front of the radar, and it´s function is to stop external radar emission´s to “bump” on the IRBIS antena and reflect back to the original emiter. It has the same function of the “composite” nose of the “Tiffie”, with the HUGE disadvantage that it must be turned off in order to the IRBIS being capable of radiate by himself.
It´s not a “RCS” panacea, and it´s impossible to put that “thing” in front of the engines and the cockpit.

(Sorry about the english, it´s not my first language, not even my second one and it shows)

Cheers 😉

Apologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:

Where the EF-2000 demonstrates a lack of low-RCS design, off the top of my head:
-trailing edge control surfaces hinged at 90 degrees to the centerline
-single, large vertical tail (the same for the RAFALE, the SU-35 has two of them, and they´re BIG)
-apparently untreated canopy (WRONG, gold coated, and a few other trick´s on the design and manufacture. more here: http://www.sae.org/aeromag/techupdate_6-00/04.htm)
-vertical intake lips placed at 90 degrees to the centerline
-corner reflector created in the intake at the lower left and lower right corner (if the comparison his the RAFALE there are a few of those corner reflector around, if the comparison his the SU-35… well that´s one HUGE flying “corner reflector”)

The EF-2000 constantly uses pylon-mounted stores as well, particularly the AIM-9. (there´s a big diference between two “132” and six “Micas” and a HUGE one for something like ten R-77/R-73)

Irrelevant, research the Super Hornet and X-32’s intake designs. (http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1990s/1997/mj97/hornet.pdf
The Super Hornet HAS S shaped intake design)

EF-2000 has canards that are angled as well, but that actually helps the RCS from some aspects. Not sure what you’re going for there. And I’d disagree with Richardson. That book is relatively old (I have a copy as well) as well and may be inaccurate as a result.

Better agility does not necessarily mean you have a better aircraft.

The two Eurocanards use the same kind of techonologies for lowering the RCS, trying to compare the two of them by that famous technology “the eyemeter” his a very good way of getting the wrong result.

Cheers 😉

when u have $500B worth of foreign reserves (3 year imports) u can afford to take a stand. EU is simply not in any position. and barring immigrants every country is demographic implosion.

Right… :rolleyes:

Europe can defend without US? Is it a big joke. Without US. Russia can bring entire EU brought into its knees within A day. just blocking energy from Middleast , Central asia and complete asian trade. ur not even capable of fighting taliban/Iran type countries let alone Russia. and in coming decades this thing will be proven. just few visits of Backfire/BlackJacks are enough to shut the North Sea Oil.

Of course he can… Of course that there are no alternative to Russian oil, and of course that the russian economy could afford to loose more than 50% of their exportations… In one single day…
Of course that a country with the economy of Russia´s could take on the EU… And of course that Russia could easily economicaly crush the entire European Union… Of course…

I´m forgetting the Russian demographic implosion?

it was ‘blue circle’…. not blue cement. blue circle was a brand of cement.

Yes, the famous Tornado F2 radar… 😀 It was a joke. 😉

I found this posting on F-16.Net
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6130.html

>> Raptor_claw <<
>> It just drives me nuts when people compare wing loading numbers for an F-22 and F-15. Why? In short, because of the lift distribution for unstable vs stable airframes. Conventional (stable) airframes require downforce from the horizontal stabs to maintain trim. Relaxed-stability (unstable) airplanes do not (at least not in the portions of their envelopes where they are likely to approach Clmax). In other words, the F-15 wing has to not only support the weight of the structure, it has to generate additional lift to balance the downforce from the tail. An F-22 gets the opposite effect – the wing can actually generate less lift than weight because the tail is helping, creating positive lift. (This, by the way, is a significant portion of the drag savings, as all lift (up or down) generates drag.) <<

The F-22 maneuvers like previous aircraft. It will be the benchmark in performance for many years to come, as was the F-15 Eagle.

True the F-22 has no canards but, canards are not a cureall. It greatly depends on the overall design and what the designers are trying to accomplish. The F-35 had canards until the design was taken to the NASA wind tunnel at Aims Research Center, Mt. View, Cal. After 160 hours of wind tunnel testing, it was decided the design was better off without the canards. It was not just stealth that lead to that decision.
The F-22 is designed to excel and fight in an area of the performance envelope no other aircraft. It can come down and mix it up if it ‘has to’ but why should it….. it can fight and maneuver effectively where no other aircraft can -high speed and high altitude.
In the conclusion of the Austrailian Air Force’s evaluation for the next aircraft to replace the F-111 they made the following statement about the Typhoon in comparison to the F-22;
Austrailian Air Force Evaluation of New Fighters
http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html
“What conclusions can we draw about the Typhoon? The notion that the aircraft is “almost as good as an F-22″ is not supportable, indeed upgrading the F-15 with engines and a radar/IRS&T/AAM package of the same generation as that of the Typhoon would equalise almost all advantages held by the Typhoon over older F-15C/E variants. By the same token, no upgrades performed on the F/A-18A/C would equalise the performance advantages of the Typhoon over these aircraft.”

Adrian

OH NO
Sweet Jesus, Mary and the lambs…
If the guy´s in the RAAF knew that someone is crediting Carlo Koop as one of theirs, there wil be some sort of mass desertion 😀
The ausairpower his a pression group leaded by the notorious CK, the guy who, not so long ago, proposed that the RAAF F-111 should be upgraded with an AESA Radar and a pair of PW F-119 engines… Plain, barking mad.
And other thing, the paper´s in that site are so full of holes that you could pass the Titanic right through it.
Start by the empty weight, the associate thrusth/weight ratio and the fuel fraction of the Raptor…

You are quoting the costs of the deal. This will include an initial spares supply, an element of spares and service support beyond warranty and Gawd knows what equipment. I quote the cost of a flying airframe, to keep apples with apples. My figures exclude the massive ramifications of the platforms intended mission….Bomb truck, Ambulance, grunt dropper, tank/AFV transporter, mail van. All will cost different beyond the basic airframe.

Sorry, but you´re wrong on this one.

The airframes cost, the “fly away” cost, if you want on the Canadian deal was a stagering 2,85 Billion US$ for 17 machines, the service suport was for another 1,51 Billion US$… And there´s no way in this world that the transformation of a cargo plane into a “grunt dropper”, and/or a “tank/AFV transporter” ads 100 million a “pop”… Hell, that´s what a basic MILITARY transport aircraft should do, right from the start!
But if you think i´m wrong, look at the Norwegian deal, four “basic” airframes without any major modifications for 520 million US$ (http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2007/Norway_07-16.pdf), the offer to India was for 6 machines costing a grand total of 1059 million US$ (http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2007/India_07-33.pdf), etc, etc, etc, etc…
Nope, forget about the suport, and the “transformations”, etc, Lock Mart his charging a very salty price for the “Hercules”.
The foreign user´s are paying a bucket load of cash for a plane who can´t move almost any of the AFV/MRAP/”whatever” who are being used…