Scorpion82@Boom & Samudragupta,
I’m more inclined to believe that the Indians feared the complexity of proper canard integration with the FCS and subsequently accepted that trade off. Maybe canards weren’t working well according their wind tunnel tests, possibly because the aircraft wasn’t designed with canards in the first place.
The added weight and RCS claims seem to be borrowed from Sukhoi, but the Su-27 is an entirely different design which wasn’t designed with canards in mind and which features tailplanes anyway. The point of comparing the J-20 with the PAK FA is moot here for the very same reason. ALL the major and experienced design bureaus opted for delta canard configurations as the gains are obvious, the examples mentioned before are a testimony for this and you could even add designs such as evolved Mirage 3s and their knock offs (Kfir, Cheetha) or the Viggen to that list. I don’t think that the Indians considered RCS as a major factor back then when the decision on the LCA’s configuration was being decided. The weight claim is moot as well as the vastly increased wing area is hardly “weight saving”. The new wings are an afterthought as well, owed to the fact that the Tejas MK1 failed to delivered the promised performance in some areas. To cut it short the Indians certainly had their reasons for not selecting canards, but I somewhat doubt that it were the reasons stated and that the larger wing can compensate is hardly believable, otherwise it would be strange why much more experienced companies designed delta winged fighters (especially Dassault and Saab) opted for canards with subsequent designs if enlarged wings would have been the solution and would offer the same results plus benefits! It’s not like the advantages of the canards are an entirely new science not known before.
Scorpion82the didn’t go for canards because :
a) it added weight
b) it’s bad for RCS
c) they compensated the need for a canard with the wing design.
So the Europeans, Russians, Israelis and Chinese are all dumb by opting for delta canard configurations for their Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, MiG 1.44, Lavi, J-10 and J-20…:eek:
Must be because there are no gains…
Scorpion82Highly unlikely as batch 3 production is still running and the batch 4 contract was just signed a little over a year ago.
Scorpion82As the question has been asked by Loke IIRC. The RBE2AA is in LRIP since late 2008. 4 of such pre-production examples are being built (or have been built by now). These have been used to validate the final production configuration and will be used for further operational test and evaluation, probably to exploit the full potential of the system and define tactics for operational use. These radars are retrofitted to existing Rafales for this purpose. Full rate production of the RBE2AA with start in accordance with the production of the batch 4 examples which are due for delivery from 2013. All batch 4 Rafales (F3+ standard) will be fitted with this radar among other enhancements including the M88-4E, DDM-NG and OSF-IT.
What interests me more than the exact TRM count is what changes has been conducted on the back end. It’s stated that there will be four new processors, but are these really new processors or additional processors? Any other hardware changes?
The next question interesting for me is what additional modes and capabilities are offered by the RBE2AA in comparison to the current RBE2?
What I’ve gathered so far is:
– 40 to 50 % increase in detection range
– improved ECCM
– sub-metric SAR mapping
– NCTR
– extended waveforms
– increased azimuth coverage (+/-70°)
Anything else?
Scorpion82@Scorpion
Check this out mate!‘Cause I’d swear that they say it does acquire AtoA and AtoG at once,
just as you were wondering if it did!
They talk about interleaving some modes (TF/TA and TWS) as I’ve stated before. Doesn’t mean that they can simultaneously acquire AA and AG targets as TF and TA means terrain following/avoidance and has nothing to do with target acquisition. Feel free to post sources which confirm what you claim, as long as I’ve seen no evidence I stick with what’s known, though I don’t exclude the possibility that there is more. It’s at least possible in theory, whether it is an implemented feature is yet another question.
Scorpion82@Taygibay,
no answers included…
The point is that there is certainly some more room for interleaving modes. What’s being said in that article is what is known and what I described above already!
Scorpion82I´m pretty sure they never demanded ´more interleaving´ (whatever that could mean), interleaving is not a problem… Though certain posters here conflated that non-issue (interleaving is 100% attained by RBE-2) with UAE´s other demands re: range and GMTT/I (which was a capacity on AdA´s development roadmap anyways, UAE just wished to ´bump it up´ in the schedule).
More interleaving just means more interleaving;) Up to date the RBE2 can interleave mapping and AA tracking, but can it overlay GMTI/T/SEA contacts on a SAR map? Can it simultaneously acquire AA and AG targets? From what is know there is still a lot of room for more interleaving!
@c-seven
We all know that EF and Gripen AESA are “pre-funded”.
I gotta say something: I like very much the concept of “pre-fund”
“Funds”: we know what that means. Well: money…
But what are “pre-fund” exactly?Does it means that you wanted to “fund”, you would like very much to fund… but you are brocken?
Whatever.
In the mean time let’s apreciate the genius of those who invented the “pre-fund” concept, that’s cool
Pre-funding means that some money is spent in advance in anticipation that a larger investor (i.e. the government here) will pay the rest of the bill.
Scorpion82@Kovy,
this was discussed in an article where a French colonel was talking about such issues. It was stated that the Arabs demanded a GMTI/T mode and more interleaving between modes and that they didn’t want to fall back wrt detection range in comparison to the F-16 blk 60’s APG-80. It was stated that a 10% increase in range is desired.
Scorpion82@arquebus
in such a case it is better to ask first if you aren’t sure rather than stating something and present it as http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1702052a fact.
As said the Su-27 features a single channel quadruple redundant analogue FBW. The channel is necessary for the pitch stability as the aircraft isn’t stable (unlike the F-15 for example). It’s indeed meant to allow for a certain degree of instability, though it may be better described as relaxed or neutral stability. Without FBW the aircraft wouldn’t be flyable unlike the F-15 for example. It’s not a CSAS but real FBW, albeit no full FBW meaning all electronic FCS.
Scorpion82very easily actually. All the eurocanards have thrust to weight ratios less than unity, so unrecoverable stalls are a major area of concern as they cant power out of them.
What? The Rafale and Typhoon actually have a TWR in excess of 1:1. It’s about 1.15:1 for the Typhoon and 1.07:1 for the Rafale. The Gripen is the sole type with a slightly inferior to 1 TWR!
Back to the point of deep stalls: All the eurocanards have CoL of the main wing behind the CoG,
The point of instability actually is to have the CoL in FRONT of the CoG and that’s true for ALL THREE ECDs.
keep in mind the current generation of mig-29/su-30 family of jets are not FBW by design,
Wrong the Su-27 was a FBW aircraft from the very beginning, not pure FBW (yaw and roll axis were still controlled by mechanical links), but FBW for pitch as the aircraft was designed with relaxed stability in mind. Newer variants are even more unstable and all the newer variants such as the Su-27M, Su-30MK, Su-27KUB, Su-35UB, Su-32/34 and Su-35S are fitted with all electronic digital FBW controls.
these jets would not be able to manuever like they do with artificial stability and would become uncontrolable in maneuvers like the cobra.
They obviously can!
Scorpion82Gripen and Rafale both offer an analogue back up channel in the case the digital system should fail. The canards are decoupled in this case. The Typhoon lacks such a channel and is probably not flyable without the canards, though I have heared the opposite that removing the canards would make the aircraft stable. There has been definitely no flights without canards and I’m certain no flights with fixed canard positions either. In the Typhoon’s case the canards act as primary pitch control surfaces.
Scorpion82Sorry, a Multirole Fighter is in fact a Strike Fighter.:rolleyes:
Multirole doesn’t insist whether a design is optimised for AA or AG first or whether both missions received equal attention. So be so kind and spare us your smart brabbling with stupid smilies. Thx. And maybe you take a look at the IAF’s requirements next time before you post.
Scorpion82Do you know what MMRCA stands for???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Multirole not not AG first.:rolleyes:
Scorpion82@Spudman,
thanks for the slides. What’s the related total doc?
Some more positive news for Australia:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/122200/australia-signs-jsf-offset-deal%3B-quickstep-to-produce-parts.html
The agreement now means Quickstep is in a position to secure up to $580 million worth of work over the next 20 years, building:
— access panels;
— fuel tank covers;
— aircraft skins; and
— in-board weapons bay doors.
Scorpion82The Canadians are reportedly concerned about insufficient STOL capabilities and the fact that the F-35A uses a different AA refuelling method than the F/A-18 currently in use. I wonder whether LM has investigated in that issue (AAR)? Canada is most likely not the sole customer who might prefer the hose & drogue refuelling method and as the B & C models use it, has LM considered fitting F-35A with the as well for export customers?
Sign In
