Hey, is that pic that snake65 posted of the shipyard where all those pics of 54a in the foreground and new lpd in the background were taken? cause if so, this is first of new lpd i’ve seen that gives out its length and beam dimensions.

This sounds very much like the nebo radar system, though that name is nowhere mentioned. But based on other given data, this should be it.

clicketh here

It does offer quite a bit more info, incluing precise wavelengths, clutter suppressin value and peak power.

What is strange though is the mig21 example data. I just don’t understand how come such a radar doesn’t have bigger range than stated against 2.5 sq. meter target. both gain and emitter power are decent enough, and with given wavelengths; from 1.5 m to over 2 m, detection range should be a LOT farther out. Also what is with the 90/150 km detection range difference for target flying at 3000 or 10000 meters?? In both cases there’s plenty of line of sight and both altitudes are high enough that in any case there can’t be any ground clutter behind them.

Oh, scratch that. 😀 i just realized those ranges are quoted for heavy jamming enviroments of -40 dB. In that case given figures do add up. Still, only in jammer free enviroment could a raptor/b2 be detected at decent ranges, if same high jamming enviroment is applied ranges would drop to around 20 km. Well, with b2 it’s fairly easy to counter – get the jammers first, then chase the bomber. with raptor, interceptors tasked with getting the jammer would probably be in trouble.

Can someone who reads chinese asess if that table resembles something taken out of official publication?

I must say I am a little bit sceptical because the length of j10 seems overstated and weights are very much rounded (unlike f16’s figures), even for fc-1 which should be export plane with stats less confidential than those of j10. If true, who knows what else has been rounded up/down and approximated to what extent.

Trouble with RAM or radar absorbing structure is that it requires a certain thickness to be effective against certain radars (wavelengths). While its feasible to put some ram on tomahawk sized weapon, it just makes no sense to put same amount on weapon the size of sbd. It’d make it bigger, heavier, draggier, etc. Also, the smaller the target it, the smaller radar you need to detect it via target/wavelength resonance.

In a way, in certain cases it’s better to go bigger if you want to be stealthy. Though, like most things, its a double edged sword.

What I fail to see is why they just don’t come to terms that they want AIRBUS to be govt sponsored company and leave it at that. Don’t even pretend it’s not. Then just add up and quantify the losses due to inefficiencies that come with govt. influence. Give out that amount from govts to airbus each year to compensate and leave it be. Hell, even invite boeing and other manufacturers to help add up the money so they don’t think they’re getting unloyal competition.

Of course, that’s not going to happen.

What we will see is more german and spanish influence. Which is not necessarily any worse than it is now. What is bad right now is that so many planes are made in so many places. Okay, leave the factories opened but streamline the process. Make ALL the fins in one factory, ALL the tails in another, ALL XYZ in third, etc. Also let those factories take other orders for other manufactureres, in case airbus doesn’t get as many orders as they can handle.

Of course it is possible. It can be done without a doubt. Only question is whether anyone is going to deem it cost effective. Making the whole thing stealthy increases the cost of each set of doors. I’d do it from the start. Maybe they did it too but are for some reason hiding it. IF they didn’t plan it from the start, it’s gonna be a little harder to find the money to change it later on…

Well, of course if airbus can go with both a350 and next gen a320, that’d be best. I was just saying in the event that they have enough money for just one out of those two projects – a320 successor is more important.

Also, i can’t imagine airbus going head to head with 787 and apparently neither could airbus. hence the xbw. I truly believe airbus can make more profits in 300+ pax region with 777 as competitor than in 250+ pax with 787 as competitor. Of course, key is speed. If airbus waits too long with 777 competitor, it will simply get trumped with boeing’s own replacement for 777. And no, i don’t believe it will be a 787 variation. 787-10 seems to me as longest possible plane. for true 777 successor i see something with wider fuselage than 787.