Nick_76Going supersonic during a first flight is a sign of confidence- and something of a Dassault tradition.
There also is the painful fact that India declined licensed production of the Mirage 2000, and partnership in the Rafale, in favor of the LCA program……..over 20 years ago.
It is wonderful news that the LCA has gone supersonic, especially if the year was 1996.
It is hardly painful for the Indians, as much as it wounds your feelings. Our sympathies and some easily proffered balm for your sore spots..
Wisepanda,
Please let our “guest” from the North, be. His splendiferous noxious emissions are a sight to behold, even as they create large clouds of gobbledegook, as he strains to be sarcastic yet not give his game away, lest he be spanked by the powers that be. I hope I have managed to use as much verbiage as he does!
Funny thing this half baked nationalism, which rests solely on imagined prowess, without one clear categorical statement, from the powers that be, but is backed nevertheless by feats of analysis with “speculative pictures” and “leaks”. Whereupon the strained individuals, panting with excitement dash over to tell the other folks what successes they have garnered in comparison…because…because…one analyzed picture says so! :rolleyes:
The poor fellow, strained as he is, is quoting one report in the Hindu, without knowing that Shri. S R Valluri who kickstarted the LCA program has written much about Dassaults unwillingness to share technology, as was written by veterans on the other board. However, we must say, that the poor fellow above is trying his/ her level best, to troll, yet not be seen as such. Sigh, such are the ways of the world. 😎
Nick_76Also the MKI and MKK are very different both are multirole fighters with AA- and AG-capabilities. The Su-30MKI will be no less capable than the MKK, more the opposite due to the more advanced avionics suite including a much better radar and probably also self defence equipement. BTW does anyone know what RWR the MKK is using?
The MKK is using a variant of the Pastel RWR
Nick_76People, the MKI and MKK are two different aircraft built and marketed by two different factories, Irkutsk and KnAAPO. The MKI is a modification of the Su-27UB/Su-30. The MKK appears to have the airframe of the Su-35 (squared off fins and all that). The MKI is more of an air superiority aircraft. The MKK is a strike fighter first. Two different aircraft, two different buyers, two different sets of requirements. Canards were, incidentially, originally added completely separate of TVC.
The MKI can pretty much do all that the MKK can do in terms of strike and has the same PGMs and even more- Popeyes, Griffin LGBs, Brahmos in the future…and Litening a much better Optronics pod than whatever the MKK has..
Nick_76[B]Hmmm, it seems Su-30s are “riff-raff” depending what flag they fly under :rolleyes: [/B]
Funny that, since they’re all made in Russia and aerodynamically the same.
That said, Russian officials have said that the MKK could glue on canards after it plugs in a TVC engine. Which pretty much tells you that unlike the F-22, the Flanker “triplane” config is composed of additions to a non-TVC design.Anyways, this is about the F-22 and the Su-35. Insisting that your favorite Flanker is really the Super Flanker instead of the Su-35 is just silly.
Ah the green eyed devil again…what is it that they say about if wishes were horses…and showing ones “feelings” open and clear… 😎
But, but mine is bigger than yours and it will get TVC too or so we are told… 😎
Nick_76Yes, limited but useful- and beggars cant be choosers can they!
See if I have a xxx Km range missile (say) and I need to detect the opposite b lighter, TWS him and launch it, I would try and get in a proper position to snipe at him. Now suppose both of us have “equivalent radars” and AWACs is not in the picture, I would try to ensure that my most stealthy aspect (or one with all the fancy stuff my boffins could coat on) was towards him, so that I can squeeze out a few more miles whilst he is still seeking me and I can launch first.
The few seconds might make a difference, in my long lance reaching towards him and its seeker going “terminal”, whereupon I break and run scattering chaff and having my jammer bleat away (and praying)!
Every little bit counts
Nick_76granted however nick as i have mentioned earlier the raptor’s system isnt anything like you mentioned ie. plots and works on prefed RCS data based on RCS testing etc etc. The raptor’s stealth can be deteriated by 20% due to various factors such as dents,erosions,scratches,missing screws etc and the system would factor that in..Infact the maintainers would actuallt let the raptor’s stealth fall to certain levels before bringing it back up as it doesnt effect mission capability it is mentioned in the AFA article furthermore the entire management system monitors emissions both radar aswell as IR and also functions as something which manages these emmissions to get a better (smaller) all round RCS , how exactly this is done is classified so i dont know myself , most pilots wont talk so i dont bother asking!!!
Actually I mentioned exactly the same thing, but differently.
The Raptors RCS is extensively ground tested, then a detailed model built up which can then be monitored based on what they know would happen from generic wear and tear to specific areas which are damaged etc
Now if one goes to the extensive effort to reduce a fighters RCS appreciably, they will also induct a system to monitor it and maintain it- the F-22s seems to be the next step and hence logical. Then you can either make a visual depiction of this model for the pilot or WSO to see, or you can just make a simplified one for him to use as a rule of thumb when heading into combat.
The entire point is to make the pilots job easier- we here discuss these issues with the confidence of armchair marshals, but in real life, as the Raptors designers would have known (and as the Eurofighters designers know well I believe) the systems have to practically perform on their own with minimal requirement for the pilot to tax his brains whilst he is juggling with flying, or evading etc
So a pictorial/ polar plot reference- either constantly iup to date, or even a simplified one, would certainly help, even for LO, if not VLO or stealth
Or even ac which have RCS in some areas reduced appreciably!
Nick_76The only emotional ones here are the MKI supporters. It shows with the silly insults and attempts at mindreading. I have never been an advocate of the Su-30 over the F-15 much less the F-22 and have had many a war over it.
There is also a reason why the air force with the far bigger budget and the far greater need for so-called superior performers (facing F-15s, F-16s and F-18s all around its eastern seaboard) does not have the TVC equipped version of the Su-30. It added more complexities than advantages.
But even that is besides the point. All Su-30s are derivatives of the Su-27UB which in turn is the two-seat version of the Su-27. The planform is same. It was never designed for TVC.
It is clearly silly for someone to use theatric terms like “perfection” ( :rolleyes: ) when comparing a derivative of a plane not quite able to match the American teen series with the most expensive fighter program in history that was designed from the ground up for not only stealth but TVC and supercruise as well.
At any rate, the discussion is about the Super Flanker, the Su-35, not what one thinks is should be the Super Flanker. In the Su-35, one can at least imagine that it would be better than the current monkey versions that Russia always exports without exception.
The entire post, I daresay, is a perfect example of: “monkeying around” and making ones unifocal zeal towards one aircraft alone, the be-all and end-all of existence.
For it does seem that the MKI is “owners pride, neighbours envy” for it doth make them see monkeys everywhere. Even the owners could not have wished for such a reaction, but there it is!
It is a fact of life that one nation gets a certain level of access to what Russia doth field, another doesnt- and no amount of monkeying around will change that basic fact.
But seriously- your emotions are out of control dear sir, do cool down! Have a cold one. Banana flavoured even! For the green eyed devil is a nasty beast, when out of control! 😎
Nick_76With the Ingwe and possibly Mokhopa ATGMs (dont know about the latter) the Rooivalk is definitely a potent bird
But color me skeptical, I would say after two more years of this wrangling, the Turkish deal will go to the Americans :p
Nick_76😎
I would like to restart the LCA thread. With competition coming up in the neighborhood, I am certain the LCA is, after so many flight tests ready for final production.
Pics and the latest – from AESA to stealth regarding the LCA and the amazing Kaveri engine would be highly appreciated.
Your sarcasm is duly noted. :rolleyes: 😎
I assume that the “PAF designed and developed (per AFM) JF-17 Thunder” has lit the spark of excitement within your chest. Very well and good to know.
But worry not there are 28 LCAs on order (8 LSP + 20), bar the 2 Technology demonstrators and 3 Prototype variants (PV-1, PV-2, PV-3), making a total of 33 LCAs for the next three- four years
From Newindpress:
HAL to go into supersonic mode
Monday May 15 2006 00:00 IST
BANGALORE: Five years after the first indigenous developmental fighter took to the air after complaints of time and technology gaps, the defence PSU – Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) – has now decided to go into supersonic mode.
HAL chairman Ashok Baweja told this website’s newspaper that the fifth prototype vehicle, trainer and the first of the eight Limited Series Production (LSP) will join the programme this year. These aircraft will help accelerate the initial operational clearance for the LCA.
On Saturday, PV2, among a cluster of four jets built, turned supersonic with air-to-air missiles on board. Scientists of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) said it was a big leap forward in the project as the jet was now propelled into operational test light mode.
‘‘As for the LCA project, it is a war-room like situation at HAL. I am getting daily inputs from officers on the progress made in the project,’’ the HAL chief said.
HAL has now taken up the challenge to complete the eight LSPs and 20 more aircraft within three years. The IAF will induct these delta-winged world’s lightest fighter aircraft by 2010 to replace its ageing fleet of MiGs.
The PSU’s focus now is on stepping up the pressure on this strategically important project to ensure that there are no further delays. Three more aircraft, which will join the test flying envelope later this year, will increase the number of aircraft used for certification.
In all, four LCAs, two technology demonstrators and two prototypes had logged over 525 flights.
Not just HAL, but even the ADA has accelerated the programme to the next level by putting a radar on the aircraft and is taking up a weaponisation programme by fitting pylons on the PV2.
The PV2 is a much lighter aircraft and possesses advanced software technology, unlike the Test Demonstrator I, II and PV1. There is a quantum jump in the build standard of PV2, which is a software intensive fourth generation combat aircraft built to production standard. Besides having a high percentage of composite materials in its airframe structure, it incorporates a state-of-the-art, integrated, modular avionics system with open architecture concepts to facilitate easy hardware and software upgrades and re-usability.
The avionics system of Tejas PV II provides excellent pilot vehicle interface in a glass cockpit which has an all-round panoramic view to reduce the pilot’s workload and to increase situational awareness
————————————-
With no lack of funds in India, and with niggling issues of the engine, local radar also being looked towards- the LCA program is being looked after.
Nick_76A Su-30 of any variant is basically a Su-27UB which is a two-seat trainer of the Su-27.
BTW, the vaunted “triplane” layout of the canard Flanker is more a marketing tool to cover up the tacked on nature of the TVC canard combination than anything substantial. The idea that the US with all its resources never saw the advantages of this “triplane” configuration is ludicrous.
The true triplane layout and the one that made any real difference was when the Red baron was flying.
Ah. Of course, if China had got the TVC equipped version you would be posting exactly the reverse. Its quite humorous actually as to how open you are with your feelings. 😀
Nick_76Can be isnt the same as IS replicated..We are comparing the SF to the raptor and many rightly put the MKI as a SF ..we are comparing the features of the aircraft not what can be easily put into the aircraft..Many of the existing Ingegrated avionics systems can be put into any aircraft provided power,cooling and size (and ofcourse availability ) however that doesnt mean that if one aircraft has them it doesnt have adv. over the other cuz ” it is relativly easy for the others to get them” ??
Never say never- we must realise that things change. Of course in a F-22 matchup, this does not change things a whit- the F-22 would attempt to use AWACs for a truly silent attack (and what use Flankers reduced RCS or not beyond a point) or for that matter so would the Flanker (to detect the F-22 if it can), but such a system may be useful for other aircraft as well and in general. To at least get a marginal advantage.
But here you are misreading a general statement about utility into assuming that i said the SF had it. When I did nothing of the sort.
Just a point. And it will not require much difference to the earlier avionics etc- just a display modification with some additional features, software upgrades should easily suffice for current gen displays run by powerful display processors with memory banks as well
Nick_76My dear Aurcov, take a deep breath, hold a rosary in your hand and meditate.
In plain English, take a chill pill and do not hyper ventilate- whilst amusing for me, I fear you shall burst a vein :rolleyes:
The ITAE institute in Russia experimented with RCS reduction for the Su-3x series and Su-27s (which they said was a huge problem), and achieved impressive results- so if all this makes it into a future Su-35 and it can reduce its RCS by a significant margin (to even the 5 mtr sq class), then while its going up against other opponents, a simple display pointing out what aspect is visible to the opponent would help. This may seem less to you, but a plain Sukhoi is easily in the 10 Mtr square class, which I see you already know
And all this would require (display wise) would be some changes.
The same would also help a F-16 with HAVE GLASS and PACER GEM or a Eurofighter or the new RCS reduced by whatever means, MiG 29 OVT aka MiG 35.
And to do this it would required adequate ground testing plus uploading a representative polar plot into the display computer.
That is ALL I pointed out. No need for you to get hysterical. The honor of the F-22 has not been besmirched for you to become a knight in shining armor and come shrieking in rage and dismay. 😎
Nick_76By the time Russia comes out with a better than a F-22, US would have gone on to X- Wings
I hope not, but i wonder about funding
Nick_76I don’t know how in the world some people come up with this kind of confidence :rolleyes: I guess some are natural born salesmen.
Perhaps I should buy you a dictionary, so u read only what is written and not put your own ideas into it..
I am referring to thrust vectoring during supersonic flight.
Obviously
The dislocation of the engine mount at higher velocities have been reported in “traditional” fighters that are not designed to handle such loads.
Which ones? Sources would be nice
The Su27 engine mount and rear fuselage structure is no different from these “traditional” fighters.
We are talking of the SU-3X which are not Su-27s (unless we talk of Su-27 BM)
So pls give a source about the engine mount and rear fuselage structure being no different
Unless you have looked behind the aircraft skin- I would take your statement as opinion, but not fact
Nick_76And what would be the resultant effect?? The f-22A has absolutely no problem picking up the RAM TREATED USAF fighters that it goes up against further more RAM isnt a do all sollution as it has certain troubles with a wider freq. range. Secondly Applying the RCS formula one can clearly see that there needs to be magnormous RCS reduction inorder to get even a small ammount of effect on detection ranges . The bottom line still remains that the su-37 is still a large RCS jet no matter how you put..Can you get the RCS done to “TREATED VIPER RCS’S?? cuz that is what the raptor goes up against and picks them every time w/o trouble.
doesnt matter as long as it isnt there..the Raptor’s mechanism just doesnt do plotting alone but is an extensive RCS managment system which acts at diffrent points for Signature supression,emission control etc etc.
Thanks for missing the point 😎
The point was that the basic system set up to monitor the F-22 RCS can be replicated, and a similar display set up for pilots of other aircraft. If you look up you have a member speaking of a similar route display for the Eurofighter.
Might not help against the F-22 but is useful elsewhere for the tactical advantage, coz u’ll know which aspect of your profile you are presenting to enemy emitter and try to reduce its range (by showing least RCS portion) for maximum tactical advantage
Sign In
