crobato$66 mate. That’s the cost of the yearly subscription. It’s more than a Playstation 2 game, but far less than a sub for Jane’s. It’s less than a MMOG for certain.
crobato“everything gets recorded. thats how you tell if a kill was made or not. pilots usually wear portable GPS recviers that constantly plot their position. once a simulated missile is fired using a real lock on the signal is recived by the control station. the pilots never see the launch but assume it happened and begin their evasive manouvers which would involve the use of chaff (and in some cases ECM) the GPS position is given for both after and before the missile was launched. the ACMI pod carried by aircraft shows an amazing amount of detail and allows the ground controlers to see what is happening in the air in real time as the action unfolds. the pod gives detail to the gound controlers such as speed, gs, attitude, roll Rates, yaw rates, turn rates, ascent/descent rates, engine thrust, CMDS operations etc. it even tells you when the pilot seclets which weapon in which mode. thats the amount of detail ACMI provides. once the simulated launch is made the evasive manouvers made by the aircraft are studied and the missile profile is also studied based on the gs it can pull, NEZ etc. all preconfigured into the ACMI range database. the missile launch point is shown along with the missile heading, range from target etc.
thats how a kill is measured. and its not all exhibition either. its easy to see if the other side is faking it or not because everything comes down recorded down to the smallest details.
furthuremore how well the R27 performs will never be given to the americans. the info given to the other side is tediously scanned through. the americans give data to country about their sidewinder and Aim120Cs profile etc. the R27/R77/R73 data is then given to the americans by country N and that lets them see how well these missiles perform.”
The radar data appears to be entered into a PC in real time. From there, the PC simulates the AAM launch and trajectory and determines whether you have a hit or not, much like a flight simulator.
The whole thing hinges on the accuracy of the AAM flight modeling. Both the US and India has no interest providing the exact flight models, although one assume that the US already has simulated computer models of the Russian missiles. However, there are certain limits to how far you can deviate from the actual flight models of the missiles involved, or it will simply defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.
crobatoThis article, which I believe from Richard Fisher, is like trying to connect dots from everywhere to form a picture which isn’t there. He is putting the SLVs, the micro and nanosatellite issues into the same paragraph even though they’re not directly related, hoping that by putting them in the same paragraph some kind of connection would appear. It also failed to explain how these small satellites can function as an ASAT.
The PRC does have the hardware mentioned, but to pack, let’s say a powerful laser weapon into a nanosatellite package is another issue. So far the PRC nanosatellites are for commercial and research purposes only, and while the PRC may have an ASAT program, it’s not clear if they involved nanosatellites. I would think that in order to create an ASAT weapon, it would be a much bigger object housing a much more powerful energy supply for a laser, radar and communications equipment, and rocket boosters with sufficient fuel to change orbit several times in a sustained manner.
crobatoOn the J-8II with the blue sky pod, even if the J-8II was originally meant as a high altitude interceptor, it appears being increasingly missioned as a multirole being a heavy fighter. That’s why it’s being depicted often with bomb loads and rocket pods, perhaps even for SEAD. The pod fits the J-8II”s new mission roles in that sense.
Perhaps its sea level handling is not that iffy after all—it has a generous amount of wing for loading, though a bit low aspect in my view. The plane appears to be fairly rugged for that task if you can hold fuel tanks and rocket pods right at outer hardpoint of the wing.
crobatoIts a target drone simulating a cruise missile that’s my take. The fake intake on top is designed to mimic a cruise missile intake.
crobatoPosted by Santa in the CMF. A drone or a cruise missile? Or a cruise missile drone.
crobatoLet’s then compare it to a Su-35 or even a Su-30K
So whats wrong with R-77 compared to AMRAAM-C?
So how good is the Russian training?
What kind of special US financing terms are these?Oh, they also include US getting to keep your AIM-120s and you may only have access to them when war breaks out, but even then thats very unsafe. Ohh + the political strings attached.
That is besides the point.
The point being, you’re comparing contract prices with flyaway unit cost. The former often includes training, missiles and technical support. The latter is just the cost of making the plane without the frills.
crobatoYour entire thread is borked.
F-16 cost includes first class training of pilots at Luke AFB; first class missiles like AMRAAM-C; special US financing terms; plenty of technician training and development of facilities. Then you compare it with MKI flyway unit cost as made in India.
MKK deals include a package of missiles, such as R-77 and various air to ground missiles, like Kh-59ME on earlier deals and the Kh-31A on the last deal. A lot of other extra missiles are obtained seperately.
crobatoI sense it’s not meant to counter Shenyang’s XXJ, but rather MiG could be positioning itself for Chengdu’s twin engined “J-10C”. which has a very similar layout. That and recent sales successes helped buoyed its prospects.
But to get this done requires serious money, and the only serious potential backer for this might be China.
Arms project development are similar to trying to get a loan from a bank. Before you can get the bank to lend you, you would have to demonstrate the financial feasibility of your project. If the bank considers you a viable investment they will go for it.
That is why in the US you have a technology demonstrator. This is used to demonstrate to the “bank” that the project is financially and technologically viable for serious backing. All the US fighter projects go through this stage (“YF-X” series).
MiG can only go so far and invest developing the technological demonstrator, from which it can be shown to potential customer that the project is viable. From then on, the customer can lend funds to develop the project.
I think MiG may have sensed that China is positioning for a backup in case the XXJ might be too ambitious, and that backup is Chengdu’s twin engined “J-10X” project project which looks remarkably like the MiG 1.44.
So why reinvent the wheel? The Chengdu project is still in its infancy, still in the computer design stage while the MiG 1.44 is already flying. But if allowed to continue, the twin engined J-10X project can be a serious export contender in about 10 years. At the same time, MiG has to look at its serious long term survival and continuing to upgrade MiG-29 does not cut it.
China and CAC will no doubt require a serious technological partnership and sharing, but MiG can leave with that so long it gets a major share in the Chinese market, gets the cash and gets to guarantee its survival in the long run. The loss of the Chinese market was a decisive turning point in the fortunes of MiG to the benefit of Sukhoi. (Imagine the switch of history if the PLAAF bought and licensed lucrative MiG-29 deals instead of SU-27/30s).
If one thing is a trend is that tomorrow’s fighter projects will require partnerships (e.g. Eurofighter) and consortiums and that it will be increasingly difficult to do it alone.
crobatoClose support aircraft has to be slow, because you need time to aim at the target. You don’t want to be too fast flying down towards the ground on your approach. That’s why dive bombers got air brakes.
The radar gives you all weather awareness. You don’t want to fly down into a cloud and it turns out to be fog over ground.
Most of the missile distances being quoted, R-77 100km, Derby 60km is overrated and is done at head on approaches at high speeds. For much of the actual range the missiles can be used, which should be half of those numbers, the Kopyo will do just fine.
crobatoOf course it was a joke… they had their last free elections… WHEN?
The funny thing is that on another forum I have had a few arguments with several people who don’t even think Russia is democratic yet… and how many elections have they had?
China actually has elections on the village level. It may expand more than that if the current leader has his way.
crobatoI think the tail of the FC-1 looks kind of “MiG-ish” to me—reminds me of one of the tail fins of the MiG-29. Though the planform is F-16 inspired and the intakes seemed F-18 inspired. It is interesting to see though, why they placed the two ventral fins in the back much farther to the rear than an F-16. There was an unverified report that said it was MiG who suggested moving the fins further backward.
With Klimov making engines for the FC-1 it creates a financial stake for MiG to make the FC-1 project succeed. MiG would be more than willing to give more assistance if CAC asks for it, and of course, compensate MiG for their time. I think MiG is still smarting over the loss of the Chinese market, and that is a major factor in the current doldrums state now. They would welcome every opportunity to get back into the Chinese market.
And as I said before there are profound implications if MiG ties up with CAC and make a go for it at the Chinese market, not just in military products but also civilian ones. It would serve as a counter to the Shenyang-Sukhoi alliance whom Sukhoi can further exploit into the civilian market as well.
crobatothe most logistical answer would be Su-27, I read google’s post on 200 million parts deal, if we conside a fleet of 200 SU in service, 200 million for parts is not that big consider PLAAF is doing the overhaul and limited service life of a Russian Jet.
so it make sence that PRC’s Aviation ind start to make some of the parts. Now, can they transport or adopt the parts/tech for J-10? I would think so.
I think the PRC has a goal to make a Flanker out of 100% Chinese parts, and there is gradual sinicization of the J-11 batch by batch. Airframe is no problem; FBW they will probably have to reprogram the same basic system used in the J-10 or FC-1; glass cockpit no problem; HUD they have their own; HMS they already have their own designs; engine with WS-10A of course; radar one from NRIET or LETRI, etc,. That leaves you with the remaining stuff like the OEPS.
crobatoBut for whom?
crobatoCan you upload the aforementioned pics of the overhaul facility?
thanks
Page 24 of the SU-27/MKK thread in the CDF. Too big to upload here.
I believe this to be the repair and overhaul facility. Note at the far corner of the picture there is a UBK there with the nose and the entire tail section removed.
This one for dh,
On the next picture, find the bunker bomb.
Sign In
