i.e.The gear box on Su-34 do provide power as well, just like any other fighter aircraft engine.
But the APU on Mig-29, Su-27, Su-34 is a power supplement and it can do a cold engine startup sequence without a external generator connected.
Just fire up the APU first and you have power.
Hell it can start up both engine at the same time thx to the APU unit.
This APU capability is needed to operate out of a class B airbase, which means very poor infrastructure and probably non-tarmac runway as well.
All the above is part of RuAF requirments, and has been so way back in SV times.
B.t.w. How many western fighter can do this?
Yes I have heard before that Russians usually have their own requirement on the APUs.
usually when something like a big radar or a jammer demands large electrical power one usually have the choice if using an APU as generators and/or modify the engine gear box and provide bigger electric generators.
I would think that for a fighter sized combat aircraft internal volume is limited and APUs typically have a restricted operating flight envelope. thus usually better modify the gear box to get that extra electric power.
no dedicated combat jammers version of Su-27/34 family?
i.e.Tell me about it :p Your context is pretty clear; you want a d*** measuring contest.
to be clear.
1) I made a statement about how PLAAF’s gear in service may be technical-and-qualitative more advanced than similar system in USAF/USN.
2) you then asked me to provide examples.
3) I gave you one.
4) you then dismissed it based on quantity and operational concerns. never-ever-once bring in arguments based on technical-and-qualitative aspects.
despite the fact that I repeated called your attention to the original premise of the argument. i.e. a qualitative and technical evaluation.
Now.
it is pretty clear that you have a difficulty grasping the necessity of context. or may be you just refuse to admit that you were wrong thus de-rail the disucssion by bring in irrelevent subjects (quantity and operational vs qualitatively ).
which ever is the case:
who is the one that wanted this dick measuring contest? not me.
best luck on your phd efforts, looks like you need it.
i.e.Well those are the correct questions, unfortunately I do not have all the answers.
Its not a coincidence that eccms are the most diligently guarded tech for missiles and radars.
But I suppose that is exactly the advantage of having an homegrown missile.All the keys are in your hand.
Infact eccm is the thing where the exported missiles are weakened compared to the original country.
Its also certainly feasible that upto a certain limit you can tinker with the eccm but more than that would require oem support.
Also again I repeat that its not as if a single platform even though programmable has got the answer to all questions.Its a game of cat and mouse.
.
yeah this is also prob the reason israelis went ahead with their own aam program. instead of a new fighter.
wonder what Israelis traded with when they asked for their own LRUs to be put in those F-16s. prob some nice data bases.
And about the “chens” part .as I said before , its not as if you need to always update your eccm.Maybe they are already updated for likely threats when they are bought and may allow some degree of customization by the user.Also its not unusual to have consultants from the oem working with you , in your country even if there is a war.
I doubt that when they sale a missile to you they already have a sure fire way to fool the jammers on J-10. for example. may be some stuff for generic techniques. but not that specific.
as for consultants on the ground.
It’s not just consultants, for the whole process to be effective one prob need good process all the way from the front line where these things are collected to analyists in labs all the way down to manufacturer.
if your oem on site guy says flat out: no, not possible, then you are pretty much screwed.
btw this is also one reason for the existence of J-11s, not because PLAAF is cheap and don’t want to pay license fee. it is because PLAAF demanded that even though the airframe is good they still want a whole new Radar/ EW gear. even if the domestic stuff may be was not as good as the Russian ones in some cardinal parameters. and they would like those to shoot PL-12s even though they may not be as good as R-77s: integrate a new missile with some one else’s radar prob means you have to also give up some of your missile’s RF parameter. they are prob dead set against that.
(this gets me thinking… can the J-11s shoot R-77s?.. .hummmm)
I wonder if the same type of issues MMRCA program will run into in the future, if ever integrating a missile is contemplated….messy.
IMHO, better off starting up a RE program right this minute, which ever choice is chosen. and have a domestic radar and EW set program ready.
even if the product is not that advanced vs the originals.
JV and ToT isn’t really what it cracks up to be…
—-
weird, I am giving constructive suggestions to MMRCA. huh…
i.e.That is what the eccm is all about.
Suppose the jammer recognises and blocks the rf signal of the attacking missile.
But the missile also recognises the jamming signal and deals with it(in many possible ways) , thereby negating its effect.
After sometime , the jammer can can change its signal but it is not possible to know how the missile eccm is dealing with the jamming frequencies.
Now this will differ for each individual missile and are highly guarded knowledge.
About the programmable eccms that is correct , say there are a certain number of eccm techniques a rvv uses.But the mica may use certain other logic.So the more options you have the better.
I know how ECCMs works. What I am curious with is how much does having different missiles buy you.
Sure Rvvs vs Mica would have different properitary techniques. but it would be just as effective if there is one platform that can rotate and/or update its ECCMs techniques either by memory or LRUs.
I presume when someone like IAFs buys MICA or RVVs or inhouse developed astra or derby IAF would have access to some of those techniques, ight? “source code” if you will? how else would you be able to keep updating them to keep up with the “Chens”. really can’t send those missiles back to manufacture to update, and I presume the “after sales support guy” wouldn’t send you a disc once the shooting start?
or that’s not the case?
i.e.You didnt understand.
Sure there are jammers with drfm blocking a wide spectrum or maybe the entire spectrum say till 45 ghz or so.
The elint/sigint units will help you to update your jammers.Fine.
But..different missiles use different eccm techniques for processing the jamming signals.Now these are highly classified data.Chances are that the enemy would have no information about how this works on each type of missile.
So even if they reprogramme their jammers which might as well cost just another slot on the memory , not necessarily mean that they will nullify those missiles.Sometimes maybe , othertimes no.
That is why the more options you have the better.
Yeah it costs more to maintain a variety in your armoury but the point I was in dire circumstances it may be quite helpful.
I still don’t see that:
if they can modify the jammers, why wouldn’t they be updating to counter different ECCMs.
and if you can program in different ECCMS techniques on your missiles, either by LRUs or SW update, or even better, make the entire Seeker head a LRU, then what’s the point of new missiles?
these options makes the other guys’s work just as hard (as having different missiles types) , and saves you the headache of maintaining different missiles types.
i.e.Lets say you got a quad pack of Su-34 on a mission armed up with four Kh-31 each etc etc, it would deem prudent for at least one of the Su-34 to carry this with them, see pics below. Dependes on the mission profile of course. No problem with high enegy consumption, Su-34 have installed a new APU for increased el-power.
It should cover your question.
so Su-34 runs their APUS when they turn on this thing?
interesting, why don’t they modify the gear box instead?
or use a hydraulic powered generators.
wonder what the cost-benefit is?
—
which brings me to another side question, was there a dedicated EW version, i.e. an E/A-18/E/F-111… E/A-6 type of Su-27 family or anythingelse as such in Russian/Soviet service.
i.e. a combat fighter modified into a Combat Jammer.
i.e.Oh god,
It seems extremely difficult for some people to understand the context of other people’s statements.
i.e.If it were that easy , then employing a wide band jammer would have solved all problems.
AAMs have efficient ECCM techniques with programmable logic and guidance algos.IR ones have IRCCM.
Its like a cat and mouse game.The more the mice the less a cat can catch.
So having different types of missiles with different eccms with differing methods of resistance to jamming and varying seeker sensitivities is quite helpful.
I didn’t say it was easy. as I have mentioned the physics (missile seeker aperature, power available, detection range requirement, material etc) dictate that the bands are not that wide anyways.
to efficiently fight an air war these days elint and ew investments not just sexy fontline super fighters are necessarily part. those things cost alot of money.
I am saying having different missiles buys you alot less and cost you bit more than you think. directly referring to matt’s comments.
as you have mentioned already, these programmable seekers do make maintaining stocks of different types of missiles fulfilling the same requirements bit of un-necessarily and costly exercise.
and as for different type of missiles with different methods etc, it is just going to cost another slot in the other guys ew gear’s memory. and likely the other guy would start to update their gear as soon as the war drags on more than 48 hours. if they smell another previously unknown signiture.
and if you fancy different seekers, you can develope some LRU or sw mods on your missiles seekers. it is whole alot cheaper than going for 3-4 sets of missiles. besides, you will need update on those seekers anyways once any conflict drags. basically the benefit of different missiles goes away and the cost goes up… every hour the war drags on.
i.e.i.e., could you please edit your post to separate my words from Matt’s?
sure mate.
i.e.The missile itself is less of a technological issue, as the warhead/targeting system, to get a small CEP.
to get a small(er) CEP, missile itself is the issue.
😉
i.e.The DSI inlet was tested at M2+, so that’s not evidence of a hard limit. As for the fan- it wasn’t designed to cruise above M1.5, but again, that’s not evidence that M1.8 is out of the question. This will be something we’ll just have to wait and see about.
Now back to topic, what will be interesting to see is what sort of supersonic performance the PAK FA has, in dry thrust. Hopefully it won’t be much longer before the envelope opens up enough for high speed tests to commence.
This will give some indication as to the ultimate potential, once the definitive engines become available(i.e. if the PAK FA can cruise a Mach X.X in dry thrust now, it should be able to get to Mach X.X with the even more powerful motors.)
you forgot the other half of the equation, drag.
i.e.I did mention diversification in general and nothing to do with a singular platform….
The PLAAF have most of the Russian missiles the IAF have and probably known them intimately and the PAF have a lot of the western types the IAF could potentially have apart from meteor…
If the IAF standardises to 3 platforms and has 1 type of missile each for WVR and BVR things could get very interesting very quickly…
I am sure the bean counters wouldnt like it but again they do not like much apart from cost savings and profits..
I would like to comment that jammer design has gone to the stage where those thing can be re-programmed very quickly.
the physics of a seeker on a missile dictates that they can prob be only operating in certain bands.
you be better off having a good elint/ew capability and good programmable jammers than a number of missiles.
better yet. able to quickly tweek your missile seekers preferrablly from FPGAs.
having bunch of missile types don’t buy you a whole lot.
i.e.I’m not even so certain that the first 70-80% is that easy, as most of these technologies are still kept pretty tightly controlled. It’s not a matter of merely purchasing off the shelf items to reverse engineer, so a good understanding still needs to be developed.
not really.
basics is very easy.
any decent engineering school in an aspiring adeveloping country can build a decent sounding rocket. basic rocket technology is close to 70 years old now. if they are really lazy they can scour the nasa doc servers and find all the data they need to build a conservative re-entry blunt body re-entry vehicle (i.e. a warhead).
what it ultimately comes down to is funding and comitment.
i.e.If India has the source code and tech transfer, they can do it themselves.
That`s rather the point of getting this stuff, so you aren`t dependent on manufacturer`s `preferred` armament.
having “Sources code”, what ever that means, in this case, I am sorry to say, doesn’t mean a whole alot.
go back couple of threads above and read my post on one of many steps a new weapon, timed “15th March 2011 15:29”.
and “tech transfer” I presume does not involve OEM’s internal developemental and engineering data. to the levels of detail that you needed to do the analysis. usually the “tech transfer” in these license deals are good enough for a Knock-down kit assembly may be some parts manufacturing per spec, anything beyond that is very improbable.
with out OEM’s full comitment you may just have to do it with reverse engineering and cross your fingers.
and even with OEM’s full comitment you not be an easy task as you think.
i.e.Well its pretty obvious. E-3 is not even the main component of an AEW network in the Pacific. Second, the US has about 20 times more AEW aircraft than China (25 times if we include Taiwanese and Japanese assets too). Did this really need to be said? 5 AWACs are a significant threat? (meriting all sorts of silly ideas presented here, from B-1Rs to AAM armed ballistic missiles?)
please go back and read my initial point again.
The original argument was on relative technological edge of particular platform in USAF/USN service vs. those in PLAAF service.
not operational capability.
please do not make these twisted arguments.
Yes, I am aware of E-2s if that’s what you are referring to. and guess what. they can’t and dont have the range and capability of KJ-2000.
and E-2Ds are still in flight test. and no, it still doesn’t have the capability of KJ-2000.
your other replys are really fluff.
and no, you haven’t covered why J-10 should have a dismal sortie rate.
Yes. I am also an engineer, and have worked plenty with Chinese engineers (and been there multiple times)…and there’s a reason why they get paid 5-10 times less. Oh wait thats racism too.
well, with analytical ability like that shown above. no wonder you went back to business school.
Sign In
