crobatoIn one word, NO
Yes, yes, there are military standards. They give you extra margins of performance and reliability, but what I’m saying you can’t stop using commercial chips for military purposes.
Military DSPs are usually “militarized” versions of commercially available DSPs.
You can see from product families like these, that chips share the same common cores, and high performance DSPs are available in the commercial sector.
crobatoThere are other projects that never made it big.
The J-12, which was China’s first indigenous fighter, powered by half one of the J-6’s engines, and managed to break supersonic speed. The project died due to the plane being albe to equip only a very small rudimentary radar.
The J-13, which sort of reminds me of a Mirage F-1.
The J-9, a delta with lateral side intakes, which later developed canards. This project eventually lost to the J-8II.
The Finbacks can regarded as two different aircraft—the only commonality between the two are less than 30%.
crobatoYEah, right, I’m sure that exactly the same kind of product.
What I’m trying to point out is they have access to DSP technology. DSPs are not just used in celphones but also has a tremendous range of applications like digital cameras, DVD players, and audio equipment. They know how to use them, design them, design around them, and even have foundries that make them. Electronics is a highly dual technology now, just like CPUs, there is no clear dividing line in the DSPs used for military and civilian applications. If I remember correctly, the improvements in the new Agat seekers past the 9B-1348 development (stuff like the 9B-1103M) are done with commercially available Texas Instruments DSPs which were not even top of the line nor state of the art (bread and butter TMS 320X class chips).
Those that are sold exclusively to the US militariy would probably chew the best MLOPS, but its not necessary to obtain the best ever (actually TI sells 1ghz DSPs for both commerical and military use). The point remains that those you can find in the commercial ones can still chew out some impressive numbers, and could be sufficient for the purposes the SD-10 maybe seeking. Not enough to create the best seeker but good enough to get the job done.
crobatoI find it unlikely anyone would use Pascal for something so important. Pascal was designed to be a language to teach new programmers (ie to be easy to learn), it was never meant to be a “real” programming language. To me, the most practical approach would be to use C for everything, and assembler for those parts of the code which are going to be repeated many times (most programs spend 95% of their time in 5% of the code).
The OS used on onboard computers on planes and missiles and such is probably not any OS you’ve ever heard of, the designers would write their own OS from scratch, and the OS would only work for that particular piece of hardware.
Not “pure” Pascal but a dialect of it. Stuff like the old UCSD Pascal before had extensions (though non-standard, like the old Turbo Pascal) that enable it to be used for commercial applications. I can’t document all the Pascal variations in Europe, but the most significant one for systems programming is the Modula 3.
crobatoInteresting about Project 129- there was some scuttlebutt that this was an R-77 development variant called “R-129”- clearly not *exactly* the case.
R-129 could simply be a project code for a customized Chinese export market only R-77 tailored to PLA requirements, perhaps to fit Chinese aircraft as a backup or supplement for the SD-10, or to fit the PLAAF/PLANAF Flankers. Perhaps those R-77s in service with the PLA now are “R-129s”.
crobatoIf Tejas is sold with the Kaveri engine, Vietnamese acceptance would be easier. I don’t think Vietnam would accept Tejas with GE F404 engine, as it may make it vulnerable to a US embargo. If not Tejas with Kaveri or GE engine, then French engine like SNECMA M88-2 or Klimov RD-93 would be good. Radar choices should be customizable for the customer: MMR, Elta M 2032, Kopyo, RC-400. A Tejas with RD-93 or M88-2 + Kopyo or Thales RC-400 would be interesting in the sales point.
RD-93 engine for the FC-1 is a good selling point for the Vietnamese. Even if relations with China turned sour again (quite unlikely at this point with a superhighway being built between Vietnam and Guandong), Vietnam can always source the parts directly from Russia. Plane can be fitted with Russian radars like Kopyo to suit Vietnamese needs, and spares can be provided from Russia directly. The plane is med tech enough for the Vietnamese to be able to maintain the plane on their own, or even duplicate the parts.
crobatoWhy don’t they just go to Klimov and try for RD-33-10M, which at MAKS 2001 was reported to be approximately 103kN (10.5 tonnes thrust).
After 2010, Klimov is expected to have the VK-10M (which the RD-33-10M is a prototype for), which will be 108-113kN.
For a small engine like RD-33, above 100kN is impressive in and of itself.
Perhaps in the future.
For now, I think CAC made the right choice going for reliability and less risk instead of nicer numbers in the spec sheet, considering this is a new aircraft and a single engined one at that. You won’t have that safety edge as a twin would, so they’re playing it safe.
It seems Klimov is now under RAC-MiG. A big sale of RD-93 engines would be good for MiG’s survival. It would also ensure future funds for more engine development.
crobatoSince this SD-10 is claimed to be superior to the AIM-120A/B and the Mica. I wonder does it have DSP? Smokeless motor? What about ECCM capability? This is quiet surprising that the SD-10 can match the best especially when their only source of help is from Russia (whom does not have such level of ECCM capability either). Does anyone have the size and weight of the SD-10?
I’m sure it has DSPs. Who does not? The place is overflowing with them. DSPs are important for wireless communication, and China, one of the biggest manufacturers of celphones now, would use tons of them.
As for ECCM, ARH missiles tend to use CWI (Continous Wave Illumination) techniques. Same goes for the R-77 and AIM-120. CWI is much harder to jam or fool than using pulse doppler. Some ARH missiles (I think the R-77) has an home on jam mode. You try to use ECM jam it, and it will come and home on you instead.
crobatoI heard the French, like many Europeans, prefer to use Pascal or Modula-3 (an object oriented version of Pascal with automatic garbage collection). Pascal like languages have a very strong following in Europe.
ADA is a DOD requirement. That’s because the DOD thought it up, looking for one language to replace the myriad of languages (e.g. Cobol) that the DOD has been using. It is Pascal like, lends itself to structured programming, and is oriented towards large complex systems programming. The rest of the world, particularly the private sector, never caught on it.
Years ago, towards the late eighties, Intel started on the 432 CPU project that was intended to directly decode and execute ADA instructions without need for compilation. It was probably a DOD initiated project. Ended in failure however.
The C family (C++, Object C++) however is the one that rules the commercial world. It is the one that produces the most compact and fastest code, and lends itself to systems programming with lots of low level bit and byte manipulation and functions. It’s so low level that you can regard it as just a step above assembly code. However, compared to ADA and Pascal/Modula, source code from the C family tends to be very hard to read and document.
A lot of systems programming still have to be done in assembly though. There are just some things you still need to get down and dirty.
I wonder if Java might become the next big embedded programming language if more and more processors are designed to execute Java opcodes directly without compilation.
crobatoRussians use C++, the French might be using either Pascal or Modular Pascal (Modula?).
C++ is probably the best of all these languages when it comes to fine grained control. Of all these languages, it is the fastest and runs closest to the machine layer. That’s why it’s also the default language of such applications in the entire world. The choice of any other language for embedded programming (ADA, Pascal) are all due to political and bureaucratic BS.
crobatoThe FC-1 uses the RD-93 engine, not even the RD-33K has such spc. Since the JF-17 is larger than a Gripen, and also has a 2,300 Litres payload, how could it have a ferry range of 3000km? The Gripen is much lighter, has the Ge-404 (better spc), and has a larger internal fuel capacity yet it only has a 3000km ferry range.
JF-17 is not much larger than the Gripen, if it ever is. I think both are about the same general size. Gripen’s empty weight is around 6600kg (Flug Revue has it as high as around 7,000kg). so not only is the Gripen not lighter, it is actually heavier while the FC-1 is 6321kg (CATIC) or 6400kg (CAC). The Gripen’s internal capacity if I remember is around 2200kg, a bit smaller than the FC-1.
The Gripen appears to have better (lower) wing loading than the FC-1 due to the larger wing area, but that also means increased drag, especially at lower speeds where a delta is not so efficient. That also offsets against your fuel efficiency in range.
Ferry range is not measured by internal fuel, it is measured by the absolute maximum of fuel you can carry including external fuel tanks.
crobatoI second that.
I just came across an article from flight international (16 June 1999), which states that most powerful version of RC400 can track up to 24 targets, eight of which can be targeted simultaneously, with automatic prioritisation of four.
It sounds pretty much like the RDY-2 then, but I’m not sure of the language if it means 24 in VS mode, 8 in TWS mode, and 4 priortized and able to be engaged simultaneously
Now we all know that two main contenders for JF-17 were RC-400 and Grifo-S7. Currently, there r some indications that PAF would opt for latter, and i’d be damn surprised :confused: if Grifo S7 (especially considering the fact that it was referred to as the most advanced version of Grifo…including Grifo 2000…by Fiar officials at Ideas 2003 ) doesnt offer multi engagement capibility while its main competitor RC-400 is offering 8. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
I have not heard anything about Thales offering their radar to the FC-1 project, but the recent EU move to life the embargo to China seems suspicious in that direction. Nonetheless, Europeans take a very liberal view of “arms” exports to China. For them, only directly “lethal” items are covered by the embargo—whole planes, tanks, ships, missiles etc,. It does not cover licenses and stuff like radars and engines. The Swiss licensed the 120mm to China for example. It was the British actually enacted on this liberal interpretation, exporting the Spey engines, Skyranger and Skywatch radars to China.
I go think that Grifo is trying to export radars to China as well for both FC-1 and J-10, given their actions and presence in the last Chinese airshows.
Right now this is just a grey area, and you really don’t know if the RC-400 will be chosen by CAC, then allowed to be exported to China by the French government. I have not heard anything substantive, compared to the rather obvious display of Phazotron and Grifo in the FC-1 booths in the airshows. So just keep an open mind and watch for the news.
crobatoThe fact that the PLAAF is still a blackhole does not bode well for Chinese netters and military enthusiasts. Not one bit. We know from photographs that what the PLA divulges officially is only the tip of the iceberg compared to what they’re working on the background. Sooner or later the news do come up in a big way, but it is often belated. Roadmaps are not presented or discussed at all, but articles of deliberately vague strategies. It often leads to rumors and speculation. This is not just part of the netters, but also in the part of professional defense journalists to US strategy think tanks formulating policy.
Recently Kanwa’s article on the number of SU-27 kits China received and how many they built were deliberately “XXX”ed out in the final published article.
The only thing we have to go for are pictures, leaks, published articles, and from there, starting putting the pieces of the puzzle to create a much larger picture.
My guess is that Formin can only add so little, and can only (or allowed to) give a disproprotionately small coverage or mention to what is now the world’s second largest, fastest growing, and most politically consequential Flanker fleet in the world.
crobatoLet me put it this way. If they made their light Mig-29 point interceptor fighters multirole what would be the point of spending all that money on LCA? The Mig-29 is made in India, so even if it was 40% more expensive than the LCA that money would be being spent in India. The M2K on the other hand is an expensive foreign fighter that is very capable but the LCA is supposed to perform enough of its roles to be useful at less cost.
I don’t think the LCA has anything to do with it, really. SMT upgrade would have been highly cost effective, and their choice not to use it lies not the other planes but with the MiG-29 itself.
crobatoFirst of all what is the radar traking range of an F-16A against a receeding target?
Second what is the maximum range at which an AMRAAM has made a kill.
What is your point? It would still make that kill anyway.
And how long to remove 100,000 cubic metres of irradiated soil or soil contaminated with a chem or bio contaminate?
How long do you think it would take to remove the same when the US retaliates in kind?
Do you think the US is dumb not to retaliate the same?
The Panzer commanders had plenty of Panzer IVs but what they really wanted and demanded and pleaded for was plenty of Panthers or Tigers.
They couldn’t win with numbers, they couldn’t outproduce factories that weren’t being bombed every night past the Urals and in the US. They needed quality but they got numbers instead.
It is easy to look for the secret weapons when you’re desperate. Adolf Galland wanted ME-262s too. Yet, what the type do? Killed and mauled their share of top German aces in accidents. The Germans was sure to lose anyway.
The Panther and the Tiger was a failure in the most decisive tank battle of the war.
They did detect the Blackhawks IFF signal… it was set to the wrong setting. they had moved into a new area and hadn’t change to the proper setting.
Adrian here has a more complete story.
Do you think it is the speed or manouverability of the Hinds or the fact that irrespective of the number of engines you have modern IR guided missiles are dangerous to everyone and that first shot and first kill is the safest tactic?
I would think so yes.
In which case, having the most launching platforms would give you the best shot.
Not with ICBMs. They didn’t have any programs to weaponise Chem or Bio weapons in that way… and were quite huffy when they found out the Soviets did have that capability.
They would still have retaliated in kind, considering the NATO advantage in tactical nuclear warheads.
They have more Engine maintainence time, but if you look at a twin like an Apache most of the problems it has are not related to the engines but the complex avionics and systems.
That’s true too, but engine maintenance is always a universal issue one way or another.
“India could afford to upgrade their MiG-29s but they didn’t. They choose the MiG-21 instead. ”
Because they have ground attack fighter bombers already… the upgrade mostly adds multirole capability, which is something they don’t need from their Mig-29s. They want a point interceptor and they have a good one with an R-77 armed Mig-29.
Somehow, that’s not a believable answer. They are looking for multirole, not just point interceptors.
That is strange as the F-15s in Israeli service didn’t use Sidewinders or Pythons to engage Mig-25s flying at Mach 2.4. Wonder why they chose to use longer range missiles instead… especially considering the F-15 can fly much faster than a Falcon…
It’s called having longer legs, which the MiG-25 has, but the MiG-29 does not.
Sign In
