If you like to read more, we have compiled some information in the N001/SUV-27 thread in the ACIG forum at the Avionics section.

Just read the posts.

http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1596

“Panda” it seems is the entire N001VE program. The obvious implication in the world “Panda” is of course, the Chinese market.

“Panda” has many steps, the last step being the use of the Pero. Basically it’s N001VEP + Pero in the final phase. This last stage won’t finish testing until the end of 2005 however. The system works in such as way that the conversion of the phase array is completely transparent to the fire control system, and with minimal changes, only a validation of 10 to 15 flights is needed.

Note that in the original document, it refers to the processor used on the N001VE as the BTsVM-900 or Baguet 54. I think the names of these were simply changed later to BTsVM-486. Don’t let the name decieve you. Besides using the Intel or AMD 486, it can be upgraded to the AMD 586 or use the MIPS R3081 processor.

The MK2 changes are quiet subtle. In Western style, it would probably be called MKK Block 2.

1. The first change is from the Baguet 55-4.0.2 to the Baguet 55-4.0.6, a more powerful DSP with additional interfaces to hold modules. With this, it was possible that the detection range was extended. (SU-27SKM which uses this processor on its version of the N001VEP radar, now has a range of tracking targets up to 125km, maybe more up to 140km, from the 90-110km of the original MKK. The SKM radar is probably on the MK2 level).

From the Panda article, translated…

“In order to avoid an increase in length and change in the full-load saturation curves of already past all tests of basic information main MPI, it was decided to enlarge the collection of functional subassemblies DSP baguette 55-04.02 and introduce additional main modulus MPI, which led to the appearance of modification DSP Baguet 55-04.06. To this main it is possible to connect the additional device, which solves number of new problems, including the regime of long-range detection, which will make it possible to increase potential characteristics BRLS 1,5-1,6 times.”

2. Second what is the additional modules added. One report I had is that an additional computer was added. I checked on the MAKS directory and found a perfect candidate. The gave away was the mention of the Kh-31A homer, and the “30” in the name which implies for SU-30 use.

http://www.maks.ru/expo/143/prod_1298.htm

Aiming Radar, RLPK-30FK, is designed for:
– ground and surface target detection by a real beam mapping with a low resolution and mapping with a synthetic antenna aperture having mean and high resolution;
– ground ( surface) tracking of stationary radio – contrast targets at TWS ( track while scan) mode;
– ground ( surface) tracking of stationary targets including non radio -contrast targets at soft tracking mode;
– target indication at Х-31А missile homer, structuring firing operation and commands for firing procedure as well as file issuance for setting navigation and integrated control data at Х-31А missiles.
– multiple use support for active homer, semi- active homer and heat seeking missiles.
– target indication for operating console by television -guided missile;
– structuring fighter control commands at flight director mode at the stage of combat target confrontation, Х-31А homing and operation.

Now I want you to go to the second line of this short article.

“- ground ( surface) tracking of stationary radio – contrast targets at TWS ( track while scan) mode; “

This is very interesting because it is quite similar to a mode that the F-15E uses on the APG-70, where ground map is frozen in the screen while the radar simultaneously tracks flying targets. Here the weapons officer can do his “work” locking on ground targets, while the pilot maintains his awareness by tracking flying targets.

Originally posted by Indian1973
I have heard the Mig29A/B is also a real dawg on the cockpit
interface. The pilot has to flip a lot of switches to lock up a target and release a missile on it?

I really don’t know why. In LOMAC it certainly does not feel like it.

You can view it the other way too. A lot of electronics can be confusing too, just like tackling a VCR. For a pilot with technophobe tendencies, seeing all those MFDs can be a nightmare.

Originally posted by Arthur
Sorry to interrupt your lively discussion, but the Dauphin/Z-9 has two Arriel engines. Also, the airplane which dropped the most bombs during the GW91 was an eight-engined one, not a singl-engined one.

I know that. Which is why my statements specifically mentioned “fighter”.

Originally posted by GarryB
[B]Both. It is used by the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 supersonic bombers and the Supersonic Tu-144 (Russian Concorde).

Then it’s a bomber/airliner engine. Those are not suitable for fighter jets due to their size, weight and spool time.

I do know better than to compare overall figures, but the ratio of Killed pilots by Harrier is much higher than those Forger pilots killed… largely due to much better escape systems in the Forger… but both have very bad records… which is no real surprise considering what they can do is pretty unique.

No Garry, you don’t know how to compare figures. Without comparing total flight hours (how many units of aircraft times how much flight hours per unit) you have no contextual basis for measuring attrition rate which is best measured by accident event per flight hour.

Well if most Helicopters are single engined can you quickly name 20 that are in widespread service… I am talking military helos BTW.

Try the Dauphine/Z-9 to start with.

I can easily name twice that number that use two or more engines…

(BTW the most widely produced helo in the world is the Mi-8/-17 family and they have twin engines…)

That’s military by the way, why don’t you start with your basic Huey chopper.

You stated that the F-16 outperforms the Mig-29, yet it is slower.

Max Mach numbers are essentially meaningless. The F4 Phantom has a mach number of 2.4 while the F-22 is Mach 2. The F-35 is only at Mach 1.8.

It’s acceleration that counts as well as sustained corner speeds and turns. US fighters tend to hold pretty well at the high transonic regimes.

Two redundant propulsion systems reduces likelyhood of crashes… it doesn’t increase it. Having two sets of systems increases the likelyhood of failure but reduces the likelyhood of total failure. Failure in an F-16 means loss of an aircraft… only total failure of both systems in a Mig- 29 means loss of the aircraft and that is rather less likely.

And yet, we have seen many crashes of twin engined aircraft that are due to engine failure or flameouts. The explosion of one engine can often spread to the other, and can already damage the control linkages and aupply hoses.

The concept of engine redundancy seems to work better with airliners where there is significant separation of one engine from the other. A fighter is too compact for this. While having two engines does add a safety margin, it also increases your possible failure rate. The chances of something going wrong with two engines is double of that of a single engine. So in the end, your safety net is offset by an increased failure raite.

Lose one or two aircraft and the savings are gone… not to mention one or two lives and perhaps even more damage on the ground.

Don’t talk about that considering all the Fulcrums and Flankers that had accidents in air shows.

That are you talking about now? Why put dual throttles if the engines need to be syncronised? I have seen a Czech Mig-29 fly an airshow demonstration (ie aerobatics) with one engine not having an operational AB. That didn’t mean he didn’t use AB on the other engine though… so one engine was generating up to 3 tons more thrust than the other (8 tons vs 5 tons). He performed rolls and loops and seemed to have no problems… even in vertical climbs.

There is no excuse for poor quality and maintenance and you know it.

Don’t justify it with an exception from an aerobatic act. What that guy did added to his risk of an accident. He should not be doing aerobatics with a plane that is not 100%. He may be a good pilot but what he did is irresponsible. An accident could take the lives of people in the ground. When one engine is not working right already, that is the symptom of trouble. If I were his flight commander I would put his ass in the brig.

The F-16 was used because it could be used and was cheaper. If there was a real serious threat then the toys will be put away and the real planes would be working.

I don’t see how that contributes to the argument.

Well then considering the number of twins I guess there must be a lot of convinceing pretend stats. Or are the Europeans, Russians, and Americans idiots? (Rafale, Typhoon, Fulcrum, Flanker, MFI, F-22)

And considering the even fewer of planes that are truly considered historical successes, I guess yeah.

Take the top five most successful two engined fighters in our time.

Now take the top five most successful singled engined fighters in our time.

Who has the most units made?

Who has sold the most planes?

Who has the most flight hours?

Who has performed the most sorties and missions?

So that Tornado that flew back to base during DS with one engine shot up and shut down is a four engine bomber? Or how about those Su-25s that had stingers up the rear that made it back to base?

Yeah, two engines did give a better safety margin, but look up the overall picture.

Which plane type in the entire Gulf War performed the most missions, sorties and delivered the most ordinance. That plane worked more than the others combined. There was only one type, and you can guess what that plane is—the F-16.

Well, we obviously haven’t read this thread properly as I have mentioned that several times as a good example of why twins are better than singles. The Bird ingestion that caused the flameout would have “killed” any single engine aircraft. The only reason the Mig was brought down was the circumstances… he was doing a slow, low high angle of attack pass when it happened. If he was either flying higher or faster (not necessarily both) he could easily have recovered and landed safely. In a single he would have crashed anyway.

You can only pick examples but YOU CANNOT SHOW THE BIG PICTURE.

That being, singled engined aircraft has been the most productive in history.

Every major war has been dominated decisively by single engined aicraft. The only exception has been the Vietnam War because the Phantom has such a remarkable high effectiveness and versatility. But the other side has been flying mainly single engined MiGs.

I already mentioned that the size of the engine tells you nothing about fuel efficiency, you can have big fuel efficient engines and small thirsty ones.

It does not change anything. The GE 404 happens to be quite efficient when used in a single engined configuration. But two of them in an airframe won’t match the efficiency of a single GE F110.

How about use your brain? If you are flying at cruise speed you have a power setting on your throttle… say 50%. With a single engine the engine will therefore be operating at 50% dry thrust.
With two engines cruising at the same speed might require 45% thrust because 45% of the thrust of two 8 ton thrust engines equates to 50% thrust in a 13 ton thrust engine with a little extra thrust for the twins to overcome extra drag. (note at these power settings the single will put out 6,500kg thrust and the twin will put out 7,200kg thrust, which I think you will agree is a healthy thrust margin for extra drag)

That’s a load of BS.

You can’t seem to understand that for the same amount of thrust, using two engines will consume more fuel than a single one.

It has nothing to do with aerodynamic drag. This has to do with engine friction.

You really have a failure to comprehend a basic concept of mechanical engineering and physical law called friction.

Not only will you consume more fuel for the same amount of thrust generated, but two engines are also HEAVIER than a single one. This means that ultimately the plane will have more mass—the bracing and supports for the two engines also count—-and require more energy to fly it.

Thus for a heavier two engined plane to attain the same speed and acceleration rate as the single engined plane, he also requires more energy to move that increased mass.

Fuel consumption is calculated as kilograms of fuel for each kilogram of force per hour.
Both single and twin engine fighters are putting out about 9 tons of thrust at 50% and 45% respectively so lets assume they have the same fuel efficiency.
It is the thrust generated that determines the fuel usage so if the fuel efficiency is 0.6 at 6.5 tons and 7.2 tons thrust for a one hour patrol then the fuel consumption would be
0.6 x 6500 which equals 3,900kg of fuel in one hour while the twin will burn 0.6 x 7200 which equals 4,320kg.

Hardly double now is it? Plus a very wide margin for extra drag. As the aircraft gets heavier the more powerful the single has to be the benefits turn to the double as I am sure you will agree it is easier to get an engine of the RD-33s size more powerful than a larger engine like the AL-31, and with twin engines you double any gain in thrust.

Your assumptions are pigeon holed from the beginning.
You failed to consider factors that two engines have more internal friction to overcome, resulting in a greater loss of efficiency, and that two engines means more mass.

In order the heavier plane to attain the same performance, it would also need to generate more thrust, and that compounds your fuel expenditure rate.

Engines waste energy… so what? Two smaller simpler cheaper engines don’t necessarily waste more energy than a larger more powerful engine.

Wrong. Two engines simply waste more energy. Ask the designers of the F-CK-1 why they wanted a single GE F404 instead of the two TFE 4021 engines. Having the two engines actually created a very short legged fighter compared to the Mirage 2000s and F-16s.

So the Mig-23 was a twin?

It was a single engine plane, and one of the most productive ones in the Soviet inventory.

The Mig-29 is an INTERCEPTOR… look that up in your text book.

Guess what DIMWIT. It was mainly an air superiority fighter with the VVS, not with the PVO.

It didn’t need long range or air to ground capability because that was what other aircraft like the Su-27 and Su-25 and Su-24 were for…

For that matter, why do you need two engines then for? It would never proved to be as efficient as a MiG-21 or MiG-23.

And what you don’t seem to understand is that the Engine is not the most complicated piece of equipment on an aircraft.

This is one of the most idiotic expressions you ever made. Tell me of another component in the airplane that has more moving parts.

So twin jets don’t have corporate profit, or maintainence or parts supply or pilot training…

They do require more maintanance that is for sure.

So the issue of cost doesn’t just depend on the number of engines you fit? Gee whizz… go figure…

There is a direct correlation between maintenance and the number of engines that is for you.

Exactly how many F-16s would be needed to perform the roles the F-14 performed? What would the ratio be 2:1 or 3:1? Now if you completely rebuilt the F-14 with modern materials and equipment and redesigned it to be maintainence friendly do you really think it would cost 2-3 times more to look after than an F-16?

Once again, an idiotic argument.

Do you know why the USN is retiring the mighty F-14? Because it’s a hanger queen. It is not maintenance friendly. It is too costly to maintain.

Sorry but Phalcon is passive phase array, not active array.

And if you know exactly what the A-50U or M uses, please post your direct information here.

Originally posted by bharat
Hey! I never said the J-10 was not in mass production, just looking at the title will tell one that. Also as in frontline I mean a F-15 in the US fighter fleet, so wouldn’t it be the Flankers?

No no, you’re confusing hi-lo mix. Frontline fighters are frontline regardless if you’re high or low mix. Hi mix means top end expensive fighters, low mix means your cheaper quantity fighters.

In the USAF it’s F-15 on the high mix, F-16 on the low mix.

USN it’s F-14 and F-18 although distinctions are not that clear.

RuAF got MiG-31s and SU-27s on the high, MiG-29s on the low.

IAF got its MKIs on the high, the rest on the low.

So the PLAAF got SU-27, J-11s and MKK on the high, J-10s and all the rest are on the low.

Originally posted by bharat
I don’t get it, what’s so special about the J-10? The frontline fighter of PLAAF is the Su-27 and Su-30MKK so why not export the J-10? Why the FC-1? Now iif it is modern then I guess the Bison is modern too. 🙂

I am not flaming, just a reality check.

Get your reality check because the J-10—already in mass production and in operational service—is intended to be the front line fighter. It just needs to build up its numbers, since it started only late like going into service last year, while the Flankers has been with China in operation for over a decade.

The reason why the J-10 is not exported is the reasons why stuff like the T-98 tanks or 052C destroyers or 054 frigates are not being exported—the PLA withholds its very best from export in the same way the Russians once did.