Page 7 – Key Publishing

Thornado

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 →

Author

Posts
March 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2338816

Thornado
Participant

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/estimate+costs+continues+rising/6379710/story.html

Oh man. unit cost might be as high as close to 200 million by the end of this year 🙁

March 29, 2012 at 9:52 pm in reply to: japan develops 5:gen after all! #2338822

Thornado
Participant

not bad, but nowhere close to the capability and technology of J-20. still lacks DSI. still tsk tsk tsk jk jk 😀 seriously though, in that form, it’s no match for Black Eagle

March 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2339004

Thornado
Participant

Come on F-35 pick up the pace already, there can be no Thunder without Lightning, can there? 😀

March 29, 2012 at 7:18 pm in reply to: Quadbike Indian Air Force Thread Part 18 #2339040

Thornado
Participant

I wonder why InAF turned down the F-35 offer? :confused: Maybe due to time schedule? http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/lockheed-fighter-india-idINDEE81000220120201

March 29, 2012 at 7:14 pm in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2339047

Thornado
Participant

From what I know, this DAS provides 360 degrees IRST and FLIR coverage. Wouldn’t 360 degrees AESA coverage be more useful? I was thinking along the lines of how the SPY-1 radars are slabbed onto Arleigh Burke destroyers to provide 360 degrees PESA coverage. Maybe similar radar designs can be slapped on an F-35 in a number of locations?

March 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2339098

Thornado
Participant

To followup on Phaid’s great picture, the F-35 mission computer takes the feeds from all 6 cameras and merges them into a single stream of data. Wherever one FOV overlaps another, the computer will merge the two so that the seam is not noticeable.

When the pilot moves his head (regardless of where his head is in the cockpit) the feed being sent to the helmet changes to match his forward FOV.

To get an idea of how this works, check out this 360 pic http://voyager360.com/

This Northrup Grumman vid shows the planed EODAS capabilities with actual usage at the 4:17 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvnhFgzIKI&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for sharing 😀 Finally clear to me now. This DAS is one fine system indeed 😎 J-20 might be another plane that has such an advanced system.

March 29, 2012 at 5:40 pm in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2339115

Thornado
Participant

Maximum ferry range 2037 km for FC-1 from CAI.
PACK claims a ferry range of 1880 nm for the JF-17mod with the biggest possible fuel load. It seems it is an error because 1880 miles give 3025 km and an value similar to the JAS-39 from a comparable fuel weight.
The internal fuel is just good for 1300 km in clean condition at best. To reach 3000 km under ferry flight conditions the total fuel load has to be ~5500 kg.

Thunder Block 1 ferry range seems to be 3,482 km or 1,880 nautical miles. This should be the correct number to match its combat radius of 1,352 km. It’s weird that the second link reports its range as 2,037 km and its operational radius as 1,352 km :confused: I assume the range number is on internal fuel only whereas the operational radius is with drop tanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fc1xiaolongjf17thund/

on the other hand, F-35’s combat radius on internal fuel only is said to be 1,080 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

March 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2339179

Thornado
Participant

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. So in other words, Gripen E (NG) is NOT any bigger than Gripen C? Such a combat radius increase from 800 km to 1,300 km is impressive indeed if no size increase is implemented. Perhaps the new F-414 derived engine has FADEC that the F-404 derived engine doesn’t have?

March 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2339185

Thornado
Participant

To be honest, F-35 is one fine looking jet. Hope the 2019 production schedule won’t get delayed again. 😀 Else UCAV might be the way to go instead. Another question, how much RCS would these sensors contribute? :confused: The one above the nose next to the windshield looks pretty big in size. It seems to me that F-35’s DSI looks more complex than JF-17’s, having 2 bumps rather than a single bump, or maybe it’s lights and shadows and there is really 1 bump and not 2? :confused:

March 29, 2012 at 5:16 pm in reply to: Quadbike Indian Air Force Thread Part 18 #2339188

Thornado
Participant

126 Rafales at about 10 billion USD is a great deal. Hopefully they can ink the deal this year and get the first batch by 2017. I though LCA IOC was set for 2014, now it’s 2015? :confused: Would it be wise from a financial point of view to terminate LCA and get more Rafales instead? The latter being far more capable and modern.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577310781259815806.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

From a financial standpoint, Su-30MKI and Rafale should serve as a hi-lo combo. Where would LCA fit in this scheme?

March 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2339191

Thornado
Participant

The 1352 km for JF-17’s combat radius contains three dropped tank.
And if we talk about NG version for JAS-39, which combat radius will be much greater than JF-17.
You can see the ferryrange for JAS-39 and JF-17 is pretty similar.

How does Gripen NG’s combat radius increased from 800 km of Gripen C to 1,300 km? Is it bigger in size? :confused: If Thunder carries 3 drop tanks, that leaves only 4 long-range air to air missiles, 2 under each wing on a twin rail pylon, don’t think that would be enough for air superiority missions. Perhaps Thunder Block 2’s combat radius would be increased to over 2,000 km? 😮

March 29, 2012 at 4:53 pm in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2339193

Thornado
Participant

I wonder though, DAS is said to have 360 degrees coverage, so what happens if the pilot looks straight down? Does the camera point straight down? 😎

March 29, 2012 at 12:49 am in reply to: Quadbike Indian Air Force Thread Part 18 #2339781

Thornado
Participant

assuming the deal for the 126 MRCA is signed this year, can the first planes be delivered by 2016?

March 29, 2012 at 12:44 am in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2339786

Thornado
Participant

there’s no need for “alignment”… just like the HUD, if the HMD is focused at “infinity”, your image is displayed on the visor and is seen superimposed to the real background regardless of the fact that your eye slightly moves (it’s the 3D position of the helmet in the cockpit that is detected)

for what I’ve understood about the system, at least

interesting. thanks for sharing 😉

March 29, 2012 at 12:35 am in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2339797

Thornado
Participant

Is JF-17 still getting inducted? this is one beast, the first true 21st century fighter jet.

http://i-am-modelist.com/2012/02/23/jf-17/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4WjYESLFbc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFg22Cms7MI
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 →