dark light

Jō Asakura

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 1,223 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2329843
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Hey Eagle1, I pulled this from my ‘retro crystal ball’ (some comedy from July 2010):

    French defence companies Dassault Aviation and Thales and European group MBDA have been in Tripoli for two weeks to negotiate big arms contracts, the paper said, citing a number of sources.

    “Talks are going well, but saying when we will sign is like reading tea-leaves,” La Tribune cited a source as saying.

    “But Colonel Gaddafi promised France he would buy the Rafale anyway,” it cited another source as saying, adding that the deal could be concluded before Ramadan starts on August 11.

    La Tribune also said that Dassault was now expecting to conclude the sale of the Rafale fighter jet to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) by the beginning of October, instead of before the start of Ramadan as previously thought by the company.

    http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE66M06Q20100723

    I changed it’s batteries and I see Rafale falling down on M2, M4, M5, M6 and M7. Oh dear…
    Losing in India could be the death knell for any Rafale exports.

    http://www.eads.com/dms/eads/int/en/our-company/Our-Key-Markets/Images/key_markets_banner_India.jpg

    in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2331310
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Would you believe ‘Meteor’ has Vympel’s DNA?

    http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Air-Launched-Weapons/RVV-AE-PD-R-77M-PD-Russian-Federation.html

    It has been reported that a conformal Ka-Band AESA is being developed for PAK-FA/FGFA so try not to fret too much about L-Band. Mikoyan 1991, fyi, Carlo Kopps’ most accurate information on the T-50 is plagiarised from this very forum.

    in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2332017
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Those L-Band arrays are NOT radars, they’re for IFF and coms/data link.

    These recently released pics were taken in May @ a presentation to the head of the IAF P.V. Naik, just before he retired, and before the anti-spin chute was installed on ’51’.

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to59000/058345.jpg

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2332738
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    With the exception of Paveway IV, I don’t think the IAF shortlisted the Eurocanards so that they could integrate US weapons on them. Who writes this crap anyways?..speaking of which, here’s (another) amusing take on why MMRCA should give way to the F-35:

    http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories1247_US_reiterates_offer.htm

    I wonder if confidentiality will bind the evaluation process even post winner selection.
    From now ’till decision day I’m gonna be totally objective.

    http://www.eads.com/dms/eads/int/en/our-company/Our-Key-Markets/Images/key_markets_banner_India.jpg

    in reply to: Pros and Cons of different types of AWACS lay out #2369095
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Why not the 787 Dreamliner?!

    The Northrop Grumman ESSD Multirole Electronically Scanned Array (MESA), was to be mounted above the rear fuselage in the 767-400 E-10A (like Wedgetail on the 737) before the project got cancelled.

    http://www.spyflight.co.uk/767%20mc2a.htm

    I think future trends will probably include UAV radar ‘pickets’ like Global Hawk operating in conjunction with ‘conventional’ manned AW&CS with scalable antenna lengths for variable power and bandwidth.

    in reply to: Russian Navy Thread #2030360
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Wow!! I didn’t know Yasen was bigger than Borei…

    The contracts, whose details are sketchy, envisage construction of five Yasen class submarines, a Sevmash official who declined to be identified told Reuters. The cost of one Yasen submarine is estimated at $1.3 billion.

    Yasen is bigger than Borei, whose cost is estimated at $759 million.

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/11/10/awx_11_10_2011_p0-392345.xml&headline=Russia_Orders_Five_Yasen_Class_Nuclear_Subs

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2369865
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    The swashplate is an interesting design, I presume it will entail reduced T/R modules compared to the fixed array Captor?

    I’ve made no secret that I want EF to win (and I believe it will given EADS’ unassailable lead in ToT and broad-based offsets), I have to admit, however, that Dassault’s roadmap for Rafale’s conformal GaN arrays is very impressive and would be most useful to AMCA and a future UCAV.

    in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2369883
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Austin, on the K-74M2 what is meant by matrix seeker? IIR? I have my doubts the RuAF will adopt the 180-PD.
    The dual mode active/passive seeker is being tested iIrc.

    Interesting silhouette:

    http://russianplanes.net/ID58182

    in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2370415
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Interesting details in this shot released today (though taken@ MAKS), ‘saw teeth’, possible differential LEVCON deflection, canopy visibility. If you look closely you can just make out the bottom of the intake and can compare to engine placement:

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to59000/058131.jpg

    in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2371031
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    i.e. why didn’t you just say Cryogenic Wind-tunnel? Why do you babble so much bull?
    Why do you skew terminology to suite yourself? So I won’t be admitting anything to you.

    Why (according to you) has TsAGI demolished their Cryogenic Wind-Tunnel?….and modernised their conventional one (T-106) @ huge expense if the Cryogenic one is

    “THE reliable tool to correct for Re-effects in transonics”,

    huh?

    http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2011/8/29/509/

    Why don’t you forward my above posts to someone who actually knows what they’re talking about, and ask them if this:

    *** removed***

    in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2371315
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    La Blue,
    …typically when people in industry say CL & CM curves what they mean is CL vs Alpha and CM vs Alpha. get the terms right. comeon get with the program.

    and so, what would the behavior typical vs Alpha, as you approaches M=1 for a typical fighter vehicle. ?

    Read the post above, I’ve already told you. An ‘Industry insider’ would concur, he’d also laugh at your skewed terminology.

    I told you before Aerospace is not my profession (and from what I garner from your posts- it certainly isn’t yours!!), but I think I’ve effectively explained to you how the chinese would have gone about counterfeiting the Su-33 and what value the T-10K would have been to them.

    I don’t understand how this concept is anathema to you, considering there’s a long list of consumer goods’ producers with IPR, patent violation issues with the PRC. You’ve heard of the fake ‘Apple’ computers from the fake ‘Apple’ shop, right?
    What makes you think the military wouldn’t adopt a similar approach, given the arms embargo and all. You’re trying to defend the indefensible.

    If a professional was to correct my posts that’s just fine and I’d be happy to learn- but not from a charlatan. I find it incredulous that you’ve dismissed my posts outright with a torrent of abuse and juvenile tantrums without engaging in debate (as it’s been 6 years since I studied these concepts- I have since checked my posts with the relevant literature and stand by them).

    Pulling cool sounding technical terms ad hoc (and I fear, in some cases making them up, like ‘cryo-tunnel’, though I have heard of cryotubes for CFD simulations) is pretty pathetic and amateurish. If you can provide me a link for a “Cryo-tunnel”, I’ll be more than happy to admit my error (unlike some), after all that is the learning process.

    In short, far too much i.e. and non-existent e.g.

    in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2371740
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    yep you have no Idea with what I just said.

    oh btw have you ever seen the difference between a cfd prediction CL/Cm curve vs a cryo tunnel results? if you have, what typically would happen?

    or even more basic, generally what’s the mach effect on your typical CL/CM curves typically as mach number approach 1? you don’t even have to gone to cryo tunnel for that one,… if you have ever seen a set of real curves on a real aircraft you would answer that pretty easily right?

    come on, it’s time to face the test.

    You’re absolutely right!! I’ve never seen a CFD CL/CM prediction curve- that would be most interesting!

    I take it you’re talking about pressure difference variations on the leading edge approaching M1 and their associated aeroelastic deformation effects.

    I have, however, seen a Lift Coefficient (CL) vs angle of attack (degrees) – which is an inclined line from L-R (approaching M1);

    Also, a pitching Moment Coefficient (CM) vs angle of attack (degrees)- which is a declined line from L-R (approaching M1).

    Did you just pull CL vs CM out of your “cryo-tunnel”?! (Not for the 1st time).

    Come on i.e. give us an e.g. (For the 1st time…..but I won’t hold my breath).

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2371856
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    I believe they’re offered full partnership in Eurofighter GmbH…Bernhard Gerwert stated that India would become a global production & R&D partner. So who knows, maybe they could play their part.

    I don’t believe for a moment political and especially strategic benefits will be ignored.

    Maybe the Indian Govt. could buy some EFSF bonds too!!

    I don’t see why India wouldn’t be offered partnership- as it would be the largest operator of the EF.
    Not the most recent of articles, but a nice overview:

    Eurofighter woos India with partner offer
    By James Lamont in Bangalore

    Published: February 10 2011 22:30 | Last updated: February 10 2011 22:30

    The Eurofighter consortium is prepared to offer India a manufacturing role, as the international race intensifies to supply 126 jet fighters worth $11bn to New Delhi.

    In an interview with the Financial Times, Bernhard Gerwert, chairman of Eurofighter’s supervisory board, said so-called work-share agreements – which determine what parts of the aircraft are made in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy and support valuable high-tech jobs – would have to be adjusted if India bought the Typhoon multirole combat aircraft.

    Speaking at the Bangalore air show on Thursday, Mr Gerwert said the manufacture of the aircraft would have to be “rebalanced” to meet the requirements of the world’s largest democracy, should it choose to become part of what he called “the Eurofighter family”.

    “All of the partners will have to reduce content in Europe and shift to India,” he said.

    In contrast to the terms surrounding the purchases of the Typhoon by Austria and Saudi Arabia, Mr Gerwert envisaged India becoming a “new industrial partner” to join the 400 European companies that make the Eurofighter.

    Indian companies would become “significant manufacturing and engineering” partners contributing to the future development of the aircraft alongside Finmeccanica, BAE Systems and EADS.

    Mr Gerwert forecast that as many as 20,000 jobs would be created in India.

    The emphasis on industrial partnership reflects the importance of the deal to the future of the Typhoon after European government spending cuts.

    The consortium is increasing efforts to persuade New Delhi to opt for Europe’s largest military collaboration as the hard-fought competition reaches a climax.

    Eurofighter faces stiff competition. Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen, Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Lockheed’s F-16 Super Viper and Russia’s MiG-35 are also vying for one of the world’s biggest current military contracts by offering their own offset, transfer of technology and price incentives.

    P.V. Naik, head of the Indian Air Force, said he expected a decision on the aircraft to be made by September.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2372026
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    Apparently this was the reaction of Dassault’s deputy head upon viewing the EADS bid:

    http://www.trussel.com/detfic/murdera.gif

    in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2372030
    Jō Asakura
    Participant

    @Jō Asakura
    you don’t really understand what you are talking about. thrust me.
    if you ever had to deal with a real project where your CFD and your Re effects departs from each other the moment you hit cryo tunnel, you wouldn’t dare to put down the garbage that you have put down in post dated “4th November 2011 20:34”.

    What the hell are you talking about? Do you think they constructed an accurate mathematical model without an accurate physical model? Er…no. They used the T-10K to construct an accurate J-15 wind-tunnel model (using classical physical similarity and dimensional analysis techniques), only then could it be subjected to the mathematical models which take into account the full 3-D viscosity of fluid motion (Navier-Stokes equations).

    CFD would then be used to solve these equations by means of finite-difference methods (FDM), finite-element methods (FEM) and boundary-element method (BEM). Then, once the numbers have been crunched, an uber accurate model is constructed and subjected to ‘real-world’ analysis (in different flight regimes- see pic below) hopefully devoid of scale effects such as relative departures of Reynolds, Froude, Weber, Mach numbers.

    http://paralay.com/142/mod_144.jpg

    So, in essence, the acquisition of the T-10K was a ‘gold mine’ of information and you should stop pretending otherwise.

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 1,223 total)