Nick_76Yes it should have, according to the forum’s rules regarding insulting other members. Disparaging a specific aircraft program on the other hand is not disallowed here. If it was, there would probably be nobody left. We’d have banned everyone else for using such amusing terms like “Sewer Hornet”.
Hi Soc,
Have you even looked into the members behaviour? If a person ONLY posts on one specific thread with the express intent of disparaging the Hornet, and stirs up $hit, again and again, what is it but not trolling?
Any website or forum would consider it Grade A trolling. I dont post about the JF-17 calling it Junk Fart 17 and keep raking it up in thread after thread. If I were to, and then engage in acrimonious pissing contests with everyone here, based upon the fact that they are Pakistani, and that being the only reason, is it even sane? And I’d get a free pass?!
Please note – I brought Buradiahs latest comments to notice of the moderator team. Did I receive a reply? No, I did not.
Has any action been taken on the fact that this is the umpteenth time he is trolling? No, its not.
Has any moderator gone so far as to publically warn him to put across his points of view in a civilised manner, and not derogatorily? No, none taken.
And when I respond – I receive an infraction? If this is not a moderation failure, what is? Heck, I am just the first case, there will be others after me who will also decide this forum is NOT worth their time and walk off. Any forum runs on the contribution of interested participants, enough trolling & everyone will find a different place.
Instead, we have to tolerate his frequent attacks on posters- look at the other thread where I had to request Moderators to edit out his offending remarks repeatedly, his referring to members derogatorily, and then we are supposed to not even respond sarcastically at his trolling?
If putting people on ignore is ALL that we are supposed to do, please tell us why are the moderators here for?
Lets ALL put each other on ignore and let the freakshows run the show on this forum.
Please look at forums such as acig and secretprojects where you are also present. The reason why they are successful is because people like Buraidiah, who COME looking for a fight and keep trying to provoke one are kicked out ASAP.
Instead, your cursory note to me & him, placing us on an equal level just indicates that the moderation team has no care or qualms about this forum devolving into a muck-fest.
The issue was not of calling the LCA whatever. I have REPEATEDLY made the point to you and the moderation team. Apart from receiving cursory notes about “looking into it”, nothings been done. Nothing that has had ANY impression on his abusive, disrespectful and trollish behaviour at all.
The issue is AND remains one of doing so on a consistent basis using provocative language, “Subramanyas bluff”, Arjun tank, deliberately ignoring evidence posted by others such as Abhimanyu and sticking to false data which the article itself rebuts.
Is it proper to do what Buraidiah did, register a fake id as he did after getting banned as Titanium, use a proxy-IP and attack him and others.
If the Keymags moderation team has decided that trolls and those who visit this place to exchange information are on the same level, then good day to you all, but surely the rest of us will all realise which way the forum is heading.
Its your call to make, and you guys can check each of the above – including a basic check on who has been posting repeatedly on only one topic with an intent to troll.
Apart from that, there is little I can say, or even wish to. I do think though, now, that this forum’s moderation is extraordinarily lax, either due to circumstances or whatever, which seems destined to send it down the tubes.
Victor is right – no point in participating here seriously, but just to throw stones at trolls and “have fun”.
Nick_76Rahul, done.
http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/13235819/Reliance-looks-to-NAL-to-make.html
Reliance looks to NAL to make carbon fibre
Local production of carbon composites would reduce dependence on imports over the next few years
K. RaghuBangalore: Reliance Industries Ltd plans to source locally developed technology from state-owned National Aerospace Laboratories, or NAL, to make carbon fibre, a scarce, steel-like material used in building light aircraft.
India’s largest private sector company by sales would make the carbon fibre at a 4,000-tonne plant in Vadodara, Gujarat, using technology developed at NAL, an arm of India’s biggest public research agency, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, people familiar with the development said.The people, who did not want to be named, would not disclose investment details because an agreement for technology transfer is yet to be signed. Questions sent to Reliance spokeswoman Sharmili Vashani on Thursday had not been answered until late Sunday.
Carbon fibre, produced from polymers, is used to make composites that are as strong as steel, but nearly half its weight. These composites have a longer lifetime and are less prone to corrosion, and are used in products ranging from Formula One cars to pipes that carry petroleum products. It is also used in the manufacture of fighter planes, rockets and missiles.
Restrictions exist on the import of the material. A global scarcity of carbon fibre and composites has resulted partly because of increased consumption by the world’s two largest passenger-plane makers, Boeing Co. and Airbus SAS, which use the lightweight material to build lighter and more fuel-efficient planes.Boeing has replaced aluminium alloy with carbon composites in half the structures used to build the B787 plane, compared to just 11% in older planes, Alan G. Miller, director of technology integration of the 787 for Boeing, said at an aerospace conference in Bangalore.
“Some of the shortage is a timing question. There are plans worldwide to increase plant capacity,” Miller said on the sidelines of the conference last month.
The aerospace market’s consumption of carbon fibre composites was estimated to be 7,260 tonnes in 2007 and is expected to grow fivefold to 35,800 tonnes by 2010, according to researcher Frost and Sullivan.
“Composites have considerable potential in commercial aviation sectors with the largest end-users in this segment being business, light and very light aircraft,” Frost research analyst Balaji Srimoolanathan said in the report.Already in Vadodara, Kemrock Industries and Exports Ltd, an export-focused unit that makes fibre-reinforced plastic composites, is building a 400-tonne carbon fibre plant to open in August 2009, the first big unit in the country.
The Rs200 crore plant also will make the composites using technology from NAL, and initially focus on composites for windmill blades and cars, which are less rigorous to make than the more complex aviation-grade carbon fibre.Carbon fibre sells for between Rs800 and Rs1,200 per kg, whereas the most common fibre, reinforced plastic composites, sells for Rs180-200.
“Import availability is restricted. So, the demand (for composites) is not coming,” said Mahendra R. Patel, chief executive officer of Kemrock. “If it is available (locally), applications also will expand.”India’s public-funded aerospace companies such as NAL, the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), use composites extensively in rockets, the Tejas light combat aircraft, Dhruv advanced light helicopter and Saras multi-role passenger plane.
The Tejas fighter has around 70% of composites for its weight, as against 30% for the F-22 Raptor and around 50% in the Joint Strike Fighter of the US. Tejas is the only fighter that uses composites in the centre fuselage. The lightweight composites in its workhorse rockets allow Isro to launch heavier satellites into orbit.
Russia, among the world leaders in fighter planes, has involved India to build composites for better stealth features in the so-called fifth generation fighters being built by Sukhoi design bureau.
Indian aerospace institutions have earned a reputation for mastering the carbon composite technology for aerospace applications, but India currently produces only 20 tonnes at a NAL unit in Bangalore.
The bulk of the demand for the material in India, estimated to be around 1,200 tonnes a year, is met with imports from Japan and France, but the supplies have been irregular in recent times.
In April 2007, Japan’s Toray Industries Inc., the world’s largest producer of carbon fibre, stopped supply of the material after India tested its nuclear-capable ballistic missile, Agni 3, with the capability to strike China. Toray cited concerns over potential “dual use” in both civil and military applications.
Local production of carbon composites by Kemrock and subsequently by Reliance would reduce dependence on imports over the next few years, when production begins largely for Saras and a five-seater passenger plane designed jointly by NAL and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
“In three years, we should be able to have a good industrial base for these materials,” NAL director A.R. Upadhya predicted in June.
Nick_76Any truth to this graph or is it just a bunch of WAGs?
The latest version of this graph is available on Ausairpower.net
Nick_76Also,
Defeat in dogfights hurt the prestige of the defending party in the most sensitive way. Why could the supersonic all-weather Mirages not match the subsonic VTOL Harriers? The Mirage’s organic weapons make it a close combat fighter. Short-range heat-seeking missiles and cannon dictate tactical behaviour during the combat which includes mandatory positioning of the aircraft in the rear hemisphere of the enemy’s aircraft with subsequent launch of missiles (gunfire) from a short distance. Dogfight is held at subsonic speeds corresponding to M=0.8. At subsonic speeds, the Harrier aircraft which has swivelling nozzle and thrust vector control (TVC) system had significant advantages in manoeuvrability. During an aerial combat which started on equal terms, on head-on approach due to a shorter turn radius and time, the VTOL aircraft managed to outrun enemy aircraft in taking a better position for attack.
No mention of the sensitive fuel status of the Argies at all, which drastically limited their options. The above analysis is dodgy at best. After all, how many Su-27s were in Russian service at time of Falklands?
Nick_76Thats a sales pitch which every country provides to a customer. Big deal.
Nick_76Russians do big projects that changes the World and run it on there own terms.
We should start archiving these. 🙂
similary is railway upgrade that will eliminate the importance of Mellaca strait and Suez canal.
I didnt get this one either, help please?
Nick_76[QUOTE=Sens;1271205
Please do not waste our time and do dubious claims.
When you disagree with a given data, you can give the related data/number and we do figure it out.
When you are unable to be specific, please shut down. Did you give the IRBIS data? I do not remember so, do I?
None is forced to use that list. 😀
Some did proof already, that they can read data but do prefer to ignore that, when that do not bolster the own claims. You show an intelligent way at least, to distract from that. :rolleyes:
To show you an example about a bad behavior. 🙁
Someone wrote the following:
bring_it_on did note a pilot about the APG-79 with 150 km+, when the list does quote 128 km+ and be by that on the safe side.:rolleyes:
The next note about the APG-77 with 231 km from A&W, when the list does quote 200 km+ and be by that on the safe side too. ;)[/QUOTE]
Sens, I really dont have the time to read your post above and parse your increasingly confusing statements (breaking them up will help), so I will be to the point.
You are not helping your own case by making statements like “shut down” when asked to be specific and more honest with referencing statements.
Earlier you copy pasted Overscans work and attempted to pass it off- that didnt work. The above shouldnt pass muster either.
The same applies to all of us.
1. The only one making dubious claims here is you. As I & Trident have repeatedly tried to explain to you, just applying double standards to Russian radars while boosting the EF system doesnt work. Your ranges for 133, 150 Km etc for the Irbis were clearly wrong.
2. The claim about the Irbis range was first cited by me (not you) and comes directly from NIIP. It is more authoritative than copy pasted guess-estimates made by some one else, even someone like Toan. I note Trident also pointed this out to you, but you choose to ignore this.
3.Yes, nobodys forcing anybody to use any data on this board. But you have attempted to use the above C&P as some sort of bizarre proof that the Captor is superior or Sukhoi are lying about their estimates. I have asked you for proof repeatedly – you are clearly unable to provide the same.
4. I asked you to justify your assumptions and state them as such. Not make editorial comments which we all can – but which are our subjective opinion.
Go back to the previous page and see all the claims you made about the Bars radar which were clearly wrong. And when I asked you for proof you quoted the NIIP webpage which doesnt say anything of the above.
5. When asked, politely, in fact repeatedly to be more forthright about citation standards you have responded with irrelevant comments about “national pride” and other statements.
6. Bringitons comments above clearly show the APG-79 data is wrong as far as the list is concerned. He goes on to say that AvWeek quotes another figure as well. Again, there is no certainty or confirmation about the list data. I was also the one who asked you to research AESA profiles under Bringitons name, because I know how Toan created the list. I was attempting to help you, instead you respond with more belligerence. Fact is that most of those figures are estimates, and I can clearly state one more which is wrong- that of the RDY. Again, your asking for specific keypoints is irrelevant- I have done so repeatedly, and nobody here will (and should) discuss information which is not open domain.
7. I think, at this point of time, everyone here can be reasonably sure that as far as your initial claims about the Irbis being overclaimed, about Sukhoi being dishonest etc are concerned – you have zero evidence to offer.
8. Given that your assertions have no merit, and the Irbis data (copy pasted lists apart) & Sukhoi performance remains credible as it comes directly from the manufacturer and the caveat is it will be validated after flight tests (which might improve or reduce present development figures)
9. Considering the above, I really think I have wasted enough time on this conversation and I have better uses for my time than face your belligerent defence of the Eurofighter by attempting to downplay the Su-35 BM using dodgy data.
If you change your opinion and decide to post without anger & with proper references and citations, do inform me and I might participate.
Good day.
Nick_76Nick_76, N011M does track 20 and engage 8 AFAIK. 15 and 4 was planned for the scaled down Bars-29 originally offered in the MiG-35.
Hi Trident, excellent post.
Just call me Nick.
The Bars, doesnt track 20 and engage 8, but 15 & 4 which is exactly the same NIIP said they could achieve for the Bars-29, if it were to ever be developed. Original aims for the Bars were of 20 and 8, and final development figures were at 15 & 4. The Indian RC-1 and RC-2 on the Bars allow for tracking upto 8 targets each, leading to the 15 figure.
The numbers may increase in the future with software and hardware updates, but I wager that the radar itself will be replaced in the MLU, at least for a bunch of squadrons.
But the improvements from 15/4 to 20/8 would be marginal IMO, with AWACs around, you get the track feed coming in anyways, and engaging even 4 widely dispersed targets with your radar isnt optimum for any system. Ideally, the Polyot will allocate targets to a flight of 4 MKIs, and they will choose their targets and attack them, at most 1-2 per each. I doubt there will ever be a situation where 4 MKIs face 32 targets at one go..because that means somebody messed up with the Mission planning bigtime.
Nick_76The challenge from the Su-35BM will give a much needed boost for the European fighters. 😀
Unless European countries are directly threatened by the Su-35 BM, why would they bother? Right now, the JSF & PAK-FA are in development, the F-22 is deployed, and yet the EF Tranche3 is in debate of being cut.
Basically, without there being a threat of a conventional shooting war, European nations are downsizing their militaries. Even France is no exception, and the UK papers are full of angst about HMG cutting funding for expensive conventional platforms.
The only reason why the EF may benefit from the BM is via own financed upgrades for export competition to keep the EF competitive. But Qn is will EADS fund the same? Even Captor E was funded with a lot of trouble.
Nick_76No I do not. It is the next best thing to get and it is as close to reality as it is possible. See the pilots claims related to that.
Radar is no voodoo, just physics and the related conditions.
Stay honest and do not undermine it with dubious claims.
Sens, you are just being obtuse here. Who is the one making dubious claims, you or I?
Please give us the exact sources for the list. If you dont have it, please admit it. Copy pasting information from other sites is useless.
You just did it on the other page, and I could point out half a dozen errors in your random copy paste.
Then you posted stuff on the Bars/Irbis and gave the webpage as a source, which didnt match any of your claims. Note the exact list of your claims I referenced. You didnt have statements referencing any of those assumptions.
Bringiton just pointed out errors in what he knew of, the APG-79.
So how, in anyones name, would you expect me or anyone else to just take a random list, made by a third guy whose name you didnt even know, and you are now saying the list is accurate?
Its not even YOUR data- if it was, even that is more reliable. Say you spoke to a pilot who shared some key features. That would be interesting.
But in the past, you have been the first to state that even these factoids need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but at least that would be better than a random list.
Different variants of the APG-63 are given in that list.
Again, how do we know the data is accurate?
Do we have comments by Raytheon about the APG-63 V4 range to make the statement that the list is accurate? Or the V3?
Dont you realise how loosely you are referencing the above statements?
When we write something, we reference it with links & details. Or we only write about something we are (reasonably) sure of.
In most of your posts about aero propulsion, you generally do the same too.
Why do the opposite now, and blow holes in your own stand so far?
Why, in most arguements you have with others you always insist on proper references, and what not.
Now, since the Irbis performance seems to be blowing holes in your statement about the EF superiority, you seem to be clutching at ANY straws, including internet lists to point out the reverse! This is surely not a good way to go about things.
When you have a personal problem about that you can tell it with a specific example to figure it out in a more serious way.
I do suspect, that you may have a problem related to the BARS and how it does fit in.
Again Sens, please be rational. You havent even posted Toans estimates about the Bars so why would I bother.
I have seen his Bars estimates btw as well, and they vary based on Open source literature. The websites he uses for info are known to me & I know their errors as well.
He does his bit, but linearly scaling up radars based on webnews is not going to give accurate figures.
For any radar.
Hence the dubious APG-63 claim and hurt national feelings from your side.
Physics does not care about that. 😎
Now you are just being funny – Sens, I would actually like those APG-63 figures. They are actually lower than what is expected from the newer variants (MSA inc) & even so, I being intellectually honest, pointed the same out.
Food for thought for you?
And no I dont think you posted ANY physics whatsoever.
You copy pasted the effort of somebody else, who did the work.
You have no idea of his sources.
You have no idea of who he was – you didnt even know who it was till I told you.
You have no idea about how he estimates these things- search around on F-16.net & you’ll know.
I’ll give you an idea. The range about Captor is from an Austrian site on the EF, which I believe Scorpion maintains or is familiar with. That site in turn pulls the data on the radar range (185 km+) from a magazine interview elsewhere. But similar data is not necessarily available for several of the above estimates. So Toan “guessestimates”.
He openly (and honestly) admits the same.
He does not say it is “Physics” or disguise it with jargon.
Sens, physics is when you model the antenna aperture, TWT available power after losses, add calculations of gain, of sensitivity, etc and then come up with range estimates.
Physics is not copy pasting other peoples work from the internet and becoming angry when somebody points the same out.
And hurt national feelings- well Sens, the Su-35 BM is not my nations. So I dont have any national feelings involved. But the topic does involve the EF, which you cant seem to prove as superior to the BM and are getting more and more agitated. So tell me, who’s letting his patriotism overwhelm logic, here?
Regards.
Nick_76Yeah yeah more nationalistic justifications and none aerodynamic reasoning, this what i called the pride first ignorance later.
Prove your argument with physics and prove your argument with aerodynamics not with the hidden grail of indian aviation.
Copy paste & rants deleted to avoid wasting B/W
Why dont you get a simple point, while you are so eager to jump into any arguement seeking a fight, which is a waste of time?
The person whom you so berated, Samudragupta knows more about aerodynamics than 9/10ths of us amateurs on the board. Ask him about specific things and he would have gladly told you. Read his post again, and he mentions the exact things which are unknown which make this comparison so hard to model.
A little politeness goes a long way MLD.
ALL he pointed out was the obvious, that without the actual windtunnel data, the detailed Cd estimates AND modelling, and even with all that, theres still no hard and fast way to calculate the reality.
The LCA may be the best aero design, far superior to the J-10 or it may be far worse. How can you be certain? Instead all you are doing is berating others for pointing out the obvious, copy pasting reams of stuff from the internet about random portions of aerodynamics and then you accuse us of “pride first ignorance later” and “nationalistic justification”.
Errmm…huh?
I mean seriously, did you even understand what Samudra & I said?
If you want to keep going in circles, please be our guest.
But the reality is that the LCA performance will vary from block to block, and all internet copy paste apart, the superiority or inferiority of the LCA vs the J-10 remains speculation.
Have a good day.
Nick_76For the benefit of the other to make some use of that data given so far. 😉
The list, to be honest, is junk. Honest junk, but junk nonetheless.
For search RCS 0,001 the range of the IRBIS E is ~ 18 km.
No bad value, when compared with the list given.
APG-77 is given with 35 km+
CAPTOR with 22+ km
APG-79 ASEA with 22+ km
So all interest can compare it with the radars listed. 😉
This is a weird thing Sens. You are comparing a stated developmental aim by NIIP, with a random list from the internet.
It simply doesnt add any value.
FYI, Bringitons posts (look under his profile) have data on the AESA radars the US uses.
The rest of the above, are junk.
Toan has made several assumptions about the Captor – guessestimates, which make any direct comparison invalid.
Its more intellectually rigorous to compare manufacturer provided data of x vs MPData of Y. Even though they were mostly under different conditions and criteria, it still has the first cut of error obviation.
Your comparison of a Man estimate vs an internet list, is unfortunately, very inaccurate to begin with.
You normally provide/source data from established authors & third sources- the same should be done in this case.
By the way, I do not blame Sukhoi/KnAPPO for that old advertisement trick.
They did tell the truth by giving the best data available, but leave it to an informed reader to make that claims comparable.
Again, what have Sukhoi done? What have you shown about any of their claims on the Irbis?
Which mode was the above range obtained at? VS, RWS, TWS, STT?
You dont know so how can you or I accuse them of being dishonest?
They are being upfront – that per their estimate, the radar can detect a 3 Sq Mtr target at 350-400 km. And the 4th power law scaling gives the other figures correspondingly.
I had the idea, that every serious reader here is accustomed to such behavior, see personal computers, cars and many more and my not get cheated by own wishes and feelings related to that or go as low to the claim, it does look good so it has to be. :rolleyes:
Fail to see what you are getting at. Could be a language issue. If you break up it into smaller sentences perhaps…
Nick_76The typcal nonsense post above does contain no single useful data, just claims from the ****** :diablo:
Sens, the author of the below is Toan. Second, as Bringiton says, the data in this compilation is suspect. He constantly updates his lists (Toan), but you are making an assumption here that the data at any point is accurate.
For the benefit of the others see below. 😉
Here’s a list of radar ranges for some popular fighters. I found it compiled on F-16.net (let me see who the author is):
APG-77 AESA (F-22A)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 35 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 112 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 200 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 300 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 355 km+CAESAR AESA (EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+APG-63 V2/V3/V4 AESA (F-15C/E/SG)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 14~19 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 25~33 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 81~104 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 144~185 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 215~278 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 255~330 km+APG-81 AESA (F-35A/B/C)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+APG-79 AESA (F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, Block 2 and 3)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 13 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 22 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 72 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 128 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 192 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 228 km+CAPTOR (EF-2000 Tranch 1 and 2)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 12 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 22 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 70 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 124 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 185 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 220 km+RBE-2 AESA (Rafale F4, post-2012)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11~13 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20~23 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62~73 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165~195 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195~230 km+APG-80 AESA (F-16E)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195 km+NOAR AESA (JAS-39 C/D PLUS, post-2013)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 10~11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 18~20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 56~62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 100~110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 150~165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 178~195 km+APG-63 (F-15C)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 9 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 51 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 135 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 160 km+RBE-2 PESA (Rafale F1/F2/F3)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 7~9 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 13~15 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 41~49 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 73~87 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 130~154 km+APG-73 (F/A-18E/F, Block1)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 10~11 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 32~36 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 56~64 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 84~96 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 100~114 km+PS-05A (JAS-39 A/B/C/D)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 9~10 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 27~32 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 48~56 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 72~84 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 85~100 km+APG-68 V9 (F-16 C/D/I and RDY-2 iM2000-5MK2 and -9)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 4~5 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 8~9 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 25~30 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 46~54 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 66~80 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 78~95 km+RDY (M2000-5)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 4~5 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 7~8 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 22~27 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 40~47 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 60~70 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 70~84 km+APG-68 V5 (F-16 C/D)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 3~4 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 6~7 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 18~22 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 32~40 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 50~60 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 60~72 km+APG-67 V4 (T-50)
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 3~4 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 17~20 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 30~36 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 45~53 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 53~63 km+
If you ever do serious research- I dont know what you do or if you have already done so, please note the following. The above is useless, unless properly cited, and you have the exact data and references used to create the above list, and most importantly how the author used the same.
For instance, which articles the above author used, the veracity of each of the sources and so on and so forth.
For instance – what is the APG-63 above?
Is it for the F-15 early blocks? Is it for the latest SKs in Korea?
Is it the MSIP improved F-15 radar?
You get the idea.
Please dont take the above list as gospel.
Regards,
Nick_76[QUOTE=Sens;1270970]Do you realize, that you do not give a single data? :diablo:[/qote]
I have given enough data. I have rebutted most of your claims about the EF having better avionics & all the generics which you were relying upon about the superiority of the EF vs the BM configuration. Each of the comments I made can be referenced and cited. If you have the time, do look through the specific examples I cited, it will be educative.
Just a lot of counter claims based on ………… and even have the mind to blame others for shortcomings 😡
No, I am not blaming you – I am just pointing out how incorrect some of your assumptions are and that they were assumptions, not facts.
There you go, and unfortunately it doesnt match any of your assertions. And I already mentioned that some of the data does not match the reality anyways. Even so, Does that webpage even mention the sort of claims
you so confidently stated? About the range being vs”
1. Against a 2Sq Mtr target
2. In lookdown
3. Being detection
4. Being in an evaluation devoid of clutter & ECM
5. 85% PD – why not 90%? Why not on the tails of the PD curve? See how ridiculous your assumptions are? You know zilch about Bars evaluation – but made these claims nonetheless.
All these were your assumptions and you passed them off as some sort of fact. In fact, the webpage mentions nothing of the above.
….. Su 30 MKI is the N011M Phased Array radar. It is a multi-mode dual frequency (X- and L-band channels, NATO I and D band) radar. It detects targets using a Non Co-operative Targeting method. It is designed to detect fighter-sized targets at 150-160 kms range, and can track 20 targets, while engaging 8. It is capable of interleaving air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. In an air-to-ground mode, it can acquire surface targets at ranges of up to 200 km (and for large resolution targets, up to 400 kms) and provide ground-mapping, terrain-following, and terrain-avoidance functions. Small ground targets, like tanks, could be detected out to 40-50 km…..
Copy pasting stuff from Overscans webpage would be even better if you referenced it. He put considerable effort into the page so do give him credit.
Second, the above is outdated.
Its not a dual frequency radar – the IFF works in L band, the entire radar doesnt.
It does not TWS 20 targets and engage 8, but 15 and 4.
I am not going to go into ranges because of obvious reasons.
Even so, anyone can make out the generic nature of many open comments about the Bars which is referenced above, but by no means clear. What is fighter sized? A Flanker is ~15 Sq Mtr (untreated), a treated Flanker is ~3-5 Sq Mtr (front aspect), a MiG-21 is ~ 3 Sq Mtr (untreated) and ~1 Sq Mtr (treated). So much for your choice of ranges.
But the above should be enough for you to see the realilty. If you still cant, your choice.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/SU-35.wbp
p 11 of the booklet there is a little bit misleading about ranges, see the text above. The curvature of the earth in mind, you have to be very high-up.
And who says you dont have to be high up otherwise? What do you think AEW&C and even the Raptor and EF will achieve their best radar ranges at?
Sorry Sens, the brochure doesnt support you in any manner whatsoever. It in fact cites the exact opposite about range.
Since you clearly have little idea about Russian fighter weapon control systems, let me reiterate. The claims made by the Russians for the Irbis are achievable, with the proviso that sustained funding to complete the flight test program.
There is no point in being denial or making 😡 faces about the basic facts as they stand.
Good day.
Nick_76The IAF is an interesting case in point in that it will receive/has received the Eurofighter trench3 tender proposals, which will be trickling into service (if it wins) when the Su-30MKI will be entering it’s MLU.
The MLU will consist of BARS AESA, uprated engines (117C?), & PAK-FA-MKI AA weapons- hence the IAF is perfectly placed to see how the 2 planes measure up. One can logically expect the RuAF’s ’35BMs not to be far-off the upgraded ’30MKIs capabilities.
In the mean time, let’s see what hard ‘data’ can be gleened from Su-30MKI’s participation in ‘Red Flag’ Exercises, not to mention Farnborough for the BM.
One thing to note is that IAF has not confirmed anything, including so far as discussions about MKI MLU. Only details about the same have leaked out from the Russian side so far. I would anticipate new radars and weaponry, plus uprated electrical generators for the same, but not necessarily new engines. HAL has gone to considerable lengths to manufacture & maintain the engines, and unless the 117C is practically the same as the AL-31FP there is the issue of maintaining two fleets of engines, plus TOT costs for another facility for new engines etc. while the earlier have to be replaced otherwise, and the aircraft has to be modified to accept the same. Wont be prudent IMO. Not to mention 2T greater thrust per engine translates to higher fuel burn, which means redesign to store more fuel…we end up with a re manufactured BM in the name of the MKI.
Sensible to concentrate on the avionics IMO plus weaponry. An Irbis/BARS-AEAS derivative plus electrical improvements to allow the same, and new LRAAMs – new IRST, etc are less of a hassle to include and whats more quite competitive anyways to most fighters worldwide, let alone regionally, where even non MLU MKI is good enough for decade to come and more, easily.
Red Flag wont see MKIs in A2A but A2G where they should do well. The MKIs have more payload, range and manoueverability than the Jaguars which in Exercise Alaska Thunder, similar to Red Flag won Mission commander status, since even when escort was unavailable went ahead & took out the target. Plus, they have the same accurate Navattack system as upgraded Jags with RLG/INS w/GPS and range of weapons delivery modes.
Sign In
