dark light

RadDisconnect

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 451 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2230194
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    Those who rail on the T-50’s use of radar blockers conveniently forget that Boeing’s JSF submission would also have used blockers, not to mention that the EMD F-23 probably would’ve had them as well.

    Of course, none of this means that s-ducts are obsolete, or vice versa. It all depends on the overall design. Obviously there’s more than one solution to a problem.

    why not? How do you kno?

    Try the head of the RuAF.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2230301
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    Seems like there are spoilers for the main weapon bays based on that CAD drawing.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2230855
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    I must say, the T-50 is in my eyes the best looking 5th gen aircraft after the F-23. In comparison the F-22 looks sleek, but boring and has a sort of bodybuilder appearance. Can’t wait for T-50-6-2.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 14 #2231117
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    Any reasonable theories about why Pogosyan ended his UAC presidency early?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2231208
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    The circular nozzle is blended with the nacelles of the rear fuselage. Any reshaping pf that area would be a major structural undertaking.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2231237
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    I think it’s talking about trade offs of F-22 style nozzles, i.e. some thrust loss but reduced IR signature. As with all things aviation everything is a compromise.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) #2231708
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    The F-35 is in her pimply youth. Now we have the internet. Her every flaw is visible to all can get on the computer and Google her.
    Legends like the F-14 and F-15 went though rough patches when they were new. That is especially true of the F-14 as she hobbled along with the Pratt and Whitney TF-30.
    Even the F/A-18 Hornet was unimpressive at the outset. But she has matured into an excellent weapons system.

    And on top of that, the notorious F100-PW-100/200. Wonder how much attention was given to that.

    in reply to: Ukraine / Russia dispute aviation thread #2232579
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    well first off they are volunteers and Ukrainian ex-berkut members- although many died in the “first days.” I do know for a fact that no one forces the russian veterans to go to Ukraine- its just they either have family there or were born there. i know of many people who did not yet get their red specnaz barrettes and dropped out and left for Ukraine. Many of those are in high up command positions. others like the Chechen people there follow Kadirov and they simply remember how the cia was giving money to the chechens to fight against Russians during the Chechen wars– so they are there because of their past. there have been rumors of GRU there – which i would not be surprised. Hence why the “batman” commander was one of the first to start gathering militia (a bat is the main part of the logo for GRU)

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]234630[/ATTACH]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Intelligence_Directorate_%28Russia%29

    i also know that now there are allot of shoulder mounted AA and strelas which are more then capable of shooting down low flying attack planes- so i think that strategically ukraine is making the right choice of not flying missions in that area

    there has been only 1 chase of a convoy or 3 bmps crossing the border. none since then. if ur talking about the aid convoys- they are being checked by osce and ukrainians before entering

    chechens and why they are there sorry not in eng (battalion of the “wild one”)

    You got some evidence to support that malarkey?

    in reply to: how will lasers affect air power? #2234738
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    I’d say in the near and medium term, lasers will drive more more sophisticated seekers (i.e. dual-mode seeker), development of active radar WVR AAM, shielded IR sensors, both on aircraft and possibly missiles. Due to the inverse square law I think airborne lasers will be relegated to point defense weapons even in the medium term.

    in reply to: how will lasers affect air power? #2235077
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    The discussion of lasers brings up an interesting point. What is the effectiveness of active radar guided missile in WVR combat? In other words, can you have a highly maneuverable HOBS missile that’s active radar homing instead of infrared? I believe such missiles, when combined with DRFM, may also be able to home-on-jam. I don’t think DIRCM works against such missiles, and lasers powerful enough to disable them may have serious potency against aircraft.

    Also, I know some will bring up the AMRAAM for HOBS, but it’s still not in the same class as the AIM-9X in WVR kinematics.

    in reply to: PLAAF crisis #2236991
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    You have to ask Deino, because I’m not too familiar with Chinese aviation. That said, I think the sources you used are not accurate at all, which is not to say that the Chinese aren’t running into difficulties though. Even so, they’ve made some remarkable progress. I guess we wait and see.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2236994
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    Seems like the text was mangled by translation software like Google Translate. Care to share the original link?

    in reply to: PLAAF crisis #2237071
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    Right off the bat, some factual errors: the PAK FA radar is the N036, not the N050 (no such thing). The nose and cheek arrays of the N036 are X-band, and the L-band slat arrays are IFF.

    Also, please please please don’t cite wantchinatimes as a source, as that trash achieves the amazing feat of being even worse than Fox News in reliability and accuracy.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015) #2238894
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    a hypothetical fighter able to sustain 9g at 30k ft is immune to current and future missiles at any range,
    and could simply fly a circle until everyone is bored of trying

    That is a profoundly ignorant statement, and doesn’t even begin to consider missile speed and element of surprise, and developments around the corner like ramjet missiles and dual pulse motor. Oh, and that quote in your signature, you do realize that it’s for missiles to match the turning radius of the fighter, right? I’ll let you think about the implication of that. That doesn’t even touch on how missiles like the IRIS-T and AIM-9X can hit 60g.

    None of this mean speed and maneuverability aren’t important, but your perception of how BFM works seems awfully limited.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2242521
    RadDisconnect
    Participant

    The analysis goes off the rails on slide 6 where stability is judged by the apparent position of the horizontal stabilizer, leading to a totally bogus “effective lift area”. Everything else falls apart from there, not that the fankiddies at f-16.net know or care. The problem is that claimed aerospace engineer “Spurts” is confusing incidence with alpha. The H-stab is in intense downwash from the wing and is in negative alpha even with positive incidence. Find out what company he works for and don’t ever fly on their airplanes.

    LO, how do you know that the stabs are at a negative alpha with the free stream? How intense is this downwash that you speak of? It seems like you’re suggesting that the F-35 has positive static margin.

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 451 total)