I remember hearing that F135 TET figure is in Rankine.

That’s not even 1000 degrees celsius…. I find it unlikely

Those are 600 gal tanks actually. And the missiles are Japanese ASM-2.

No, I was actually referring to the F-16…. as that’s what JSR was comparing F-2 to.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]253027[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]253028[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]253029[/ATTACH]

FC-31’s new version with several differences to the legacy FC-31, caught on camera. Photos and gif (guess keypublishing forum doesn’t support gif file. One may download it and try changing the extender to gif) by “ㅇㄷㄷ”. (http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=arm&no=1276560&page=1&search_pos=&s_type=search_name&s_keyword=%E3%85%87%E3%84%B7%E3%84%B7) (http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=arm&no=1275392&page=1&search_pos=&s_type=search_name&s_keyword=%E3%85%87%E3%84%B7%E3%84%B7)

I may also try to find some differences if I’ve got time… I already can see the difference on the vertical wing though.

Try to understand before giving uninformed reply. that Mitsubishi F-2 picture is hardly impressive for an aircraft that is made of composite of material and presumably slightly larger than standard F-16. Any late 1980s built F-16 can lift that much loads. and we still don’t know how much runway F-2 need for such load out and what is the top speed and altitude of F-2.

Ofc, 4 harpoons but also with 2 external 370 gallon fuel tanks and a wingtip WVRAAM to be fully operational isn’t it? Now really, “uninformed reply”?

if you want to see effective application of composite materials looke MIG-29K. It has folding wings, 5 wet stations, enlarged nose and spine/wing area, more engine power and can lift from carrier for short takeoff with heavy loads. Rafale use greater percentage of composites but small nose, no folding wings and weak engines make it less effective use of composite structure

Another RUSSIA STRONK here.
How is the folding to do with composites? Are the folding joints of the main wing made out of composites? Thus will you give any specific reference about MiG-29k’s composite material uses? RAC only approves 15% composite uses on the air frame, whereas Rafale as you’ve mentioned has more application of composite materials, roughly 28%. Why compare two fighters of way different composite material ratio? That’s simply idiotic.
Rafale’s engine you say? They are smaller, lighter and therefore a lower thrust. Why argue something so obvious? It also has a better TTW ratio thus the air frame itself is way lighter than the MiG-29K so it’s YOU, who gotta stop an uninformed reply.

Rest doesn’t even deserve a further reply.

Guess no more replies for your bull**** is something miles wiser to be done than what I’ve done till now.

F-2’s navy blue is one of my favorites…

do you have pictures of Mitsubish F-2 with CFT or heavy loads. Its not the composite materials but how heavy weopons it can sustain over various weopons stations for next 30 years under heavy use.

You make me reply to your nonsense after all…. Else wise would the others who that are not well informed get “by JSR” wrong infos.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]253012[/ATTACH]

Never knew, that 4 ASMs with 2 drop tanks and 2 wingtip WVRAAMs ain’t a heavy load.

now landing gears are built in Russian for more advanced jets.

I knew it. Changing stances. Isn’t it, Mr. “Russia create there own maths”? I even feel pity for people like you, not being able to forget the Soviet glory almost 30 years old today, getting so desperate and obsessed for dissing the other countries with better situation.

The problem is that you are not understanding economic growth. You are complete import and export dependent economic system with domestic consumer buried in debt. you never learned how to stand on own feet. i don’t have time to teach you oil price.

Why not ask this also to Germans? Citizens buried under debt? So definitely not Russia, where over 30% of its people responded for the survey, that they aren’t able to buy basic daily necessities to completely fulfill there needs. Is it only Korea where domestic debts rise? Guess you already forgot 2008. Say I don’t understand economics and talks about some “Russian(TM) Magic Economics”, never a genuine statement. Now I bombard you with truth and facts, you can’t even refute properly.

KF-X is going to fail because korea neither haveand the money nor the technical ability. At best it will be Gripen NG.

And as always,the climax, the story’s end is always a personal hope.

These are the SAAB claims from 2013:
Sea coverage is only limited by the horizon,
which is around 190 NM. Within this area, everything
from fighter aircraft, hovering helicopters, cruise
missiles or sea targets down to a Jet Ski can be
detected and tracked.

GaN surely is a game changer I guess…. According to this brochure here [http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/eds/radar/airborne/erieye_en_2013.pdf%5D about the older Erieye, also from Tu22m, it states the detection range of a cruise missile on a low altitude detected from 30,000 ft above sea level as 100 nm or roughly 190 km.
That can also be translated as “100 nm (Erieye – GaAs)/ 190 nm (Erieye ER – GaN) look-down detection range for an airborne target, flying on a low altitude with RCS of roughly 0.5 sqm”, as long as that infographic in the brochure is made accordingly to the actual data.

ALAIK, Erieye ER has same physical dimensions in comparison to its predecessor, and that is roughly 8 sqm per antenna arrays on one side.
On the other hand, the MESA of E-737 has around 13 sqm sized antenna arrays on each sides and a bit smaller end-fire arrays on the top. IIRC it uses GaAs T/RMs, and from what I remember from Korean E-X program, it can detect “figter sized targets” (targets with 5 sqm RCS) in distance of 370+ km when uniform coverage (360 degrees threat sectors, including both look-down and look-up, in all weather conditions), 600+ km BTH mode (dedicated sector coverage). A cruise missile is clearly a target with “cleaner” contour or in other words, profile, definitely a lower RCS compared to a conventional fighter jet, a 350 km detection range for such target on look-down mode is clearly impressive but on the other side, also a bit doubtful.

On the other hand, AN/APY-2 on Block 35 RSIP E-3, which has an PESA antenna of a size of 10.95 sqm, rotating in its standard operational rotation speed of 6 rpm can detect a target around 400 km away look-down (probably a target with 5 sqm RCS)… Gosh this is getting more and more confusing.

TBH, its quite meaningless arguing which one is better or whatever, not knowing any of the specific information like search rate, neither beam-forming angle/search mode, nor the maximum output for the T/R modules; its an AESA not a rotordome…. Indeed, when the beam is narrower, E-737 can even detect sth beyond 600+ km as of what NG and Boeing claims and this also carries conviction, as E-737 successfully detected NK BMs launched hundreds of kilometers away until now…

Apart from all that, the only one thing sure about Erieye for me is that it can’t look 360. That’s why it got dropped out so early in the Korean E-X. The RoC clearly stated a 360 detection and Erieye was not able to do that. I’ve also saw several arguments about whether Erieye is able to detect 360 or not, including the one here in keypublishing, 2006. SAAB stated a 360 detection and so did the other sources like flight, etc. claiming compensated 360 detection with optimal performance for 150 degrees each side… guess that was a vine from SAAB.

Anyways, will it be true what Ericsson/SAAB claims, that Erieye ER can detect and track a cruise missile on low-alt with look-down in a distance of 350 km? If that is the case, those GaN T/R modules in Erieye ER will definitely be handling some impressive output.

Maro.Kyo
try to understand what i wrote.

what kind of supporting arguments you need for some thing so obvious. Korea simply cant afford a competitive KFX. Even Japan is going backward in technology as it dropped the use of composites in its Mitsubishi MRJ regional Jet and that plane is 10 years delayed and need all the flight testing overseas. The point is as China put more sanctions on North Korea the greater NK labor will work on Russian projects.
https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/25042…rth-korea-ban/

China has seen coal imports from Russia jump in March following North Korea ban
Korea is bankrupt despite all the past 30 years of scientific help from Russia. Russia will demand market price for that past intellectual use. and if that required investements are not provided than you will see that impact all around Asia and Middleast where Korean firms will be thrown out. flights routes will be curtailed. it is not just Thaad. its about disarming Korea and make it more dependent.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-ru…h-korea-thaad/

BEIJING — Chinese state media say Beijing and Moscow have agreed to take “further countermeasures” in response to plans for an advanced U.S. missile defense system in South Korea

Ok, I’m not personally interested on how you think, nor am I willing to change how you think. (One thing I’ve gotta say, I’ve seen so many people who talks just like you, with just the same stance) Though, would you continue that arguments in a different dedicated post or whatever? This is a KFX thread where it is the fighter development project to be discussed.

Now your willing to continue this unworthy conversation, despite what I said just above this, I’ll reply you probably for once and for last, about your twisted Russian dreams with reality.

First off, you’re blaming MRJ is a commercial plane, which is all about economy and efficiency, thus you better give an source about in which way MHI decreased the use of composite materials for MRJ. Do you even know that one of the sales point of MRJ is its lighter aircraft thanks to composite uses? You gotta know that Japan is one of the leaders of composite material industries and F-2 was the first fighter jet to have a full composite integral unit airfoil surface. Not only that, the amount of composite material used for F-2 was not ordinary for a fighter jet at that time. Your keen to say that Japan lost such technology or something similar, but sorry, X-2 doesn’t looks like it agrees with that.

I’m also quite sure that the mighty Sukhoi doesn’t get a single help for SSJ-100 from its consultant Boeing nor is Alenia its partner isn’t it? The engine which is produced by a joint venture with Snecma will also be purely NTO Saturn product I guess. Also the electronics from Thales or control system from Liebherr is actually Russian built, the APU from Honywell is never an American product, Landing gear from Messier Dowty is never French.

Chinese sanctions on NK? Who sends crude oil to NK? Who exports an item under UNSC sanction against NK? Who helps NK to develop nukes? Chinese sanction on NK is US sanction on UK. Labor forces of NK? Yeah sure, good luck with those under-educated laborers suffering malnutrition. AH! That’s why Russia is suffering such a severe economic difficulties. Now I understand it better.

30 years of scientific help and Korean Bankruptcy? Uh…. I’m seriously saying. Are you confused between South Korea and North Korea? Have you ever heard of Bulgom project?
Who was the actual one that lend money from S.Kor when they were just about to collapse? Who calls for Korean capital and help to develop the Siberia? Who sold important technologies to Korea, which was rapidly growing in terms of economy and GDP, due to harsh national economic situations? Who has gone through one of the most important and famous bankruptcy in mankind’s history, used its natural resources trying to reclaims its old glory, but failed due to overall lower crude oil price? Who is cutting their defense budget, even though they need a bigger military to blackmail the neighbors and try acting like a big boss?

Korea being bankrupt? Korea had 2.7 % GDP growth just last year, and that devastating THAAD sanction from China and Russia was so deadly and successful, that Korea was able to continue its 6 months-long export boom, especially for electronics industry which is benefiting from global IoT and network expansion. Son, unfortunately for you, Russia ain’t Korea’s export priority nor China, but its the US, Europe and India. Dependent on foreign technologies? Well partially true but our core industry a no. I guess Korea is so dependent that Samsung is one of the industrial leaders along with LG and SK, Hyundai exporting engines for Mitsubishi and Chrysler, POSCO producing various kinds of special steels. Who is along US Japan and west Europe to lead 5G telecommunications development? There are even more I could mention but it seems enough already.

KF-X is going to fail due to Americans you say, though do you know that the TAC for this project is LM? Do you know Korea was 4th country on the list for military imports and the majority come from the US? KF-X a competitor of the F-35? Never a requirement, never a hope. It’s a 4.5 gen, thus Korea’s strategy to sell this fighter is to sell it to those who can’t buy F-35.

Rest of your wet dreams are something to laugh about. Good luck calling your president at Moscow and Mr. Xi in China to fulfill the fantasy of yours.