missileer– or visit independent webportal dedicated to tyres and find the results for yourself.
Quite comically, the objetive results never match the manufacturer’s or reseller’s claims.
Why or why is that? š
Or visit a second or third independent webportal dedicated to tyres and discover that these don’t agree either.
We seem to have wandered a long way from the original topic, but at least a certain troll seems to have dropped out of the thread…
missileerHow large are the fins on AIM-120 vs AIM-9 ?
The wing span of an AIM-9X is 44 cm. The wing span of an AIM-120C-5 is only marginally bigger at 44.5 cm (older ā120 A and B versions had a 63 cm span.)
missileerAny Chinese speakers out there got any further details of the engines? I see this has a maximum takeoff weight of almost a ton more than the original Super Frelon.
According to Jane’s China correspondent, it is reported to use a new and more powerful version of the WZ-10 engine driving composite rotor-blades. However, he notes that “some Chinese reports have indicated that the Russian BK-2500 and TV7-117V engines were considered instead.”
Other features include the retractable landing gear that replaces the original fixed landing-gear sponsons used on the Z-8, and a deeper fuselage that makes greater use of composite materials, and incorporates crash-damage-resistant fuel tanks and seating.
missileerAnyway….back to Hornets…..
I assume RAAF and CAF Hornets will be ok since they had all that centre barrel and wing work done during upgrades :confused:
But what is the current status of the RAAF upgrade programme? In 2007, the position was that although the programme could in theory involve 69 aircraft getting the new centre barrel, the then-current plan was talking about 49. But in 2008 the Australian standing committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade was told that the programme was now likely to involve only about 10 aircraft.
But my knowledge of the Hornet programme may not be up-to-date. As my username indicates, my expertise lies in the missiles/space field rather than manned aircraft programmes.
missileerNearly everything i post on this forum is from a source you empty head..haven’t you got better things to do with your time than to nitpick..if you’re sick of it go somewhere else and do your stirring ..we don’t need halfwits like you on the forum
What you need to worry about is having the author of the original story on the forum. Quoting part of a story and giving credit to the magazine and/or journalist is fine, but lifting an entire story word for word is a violation of copyright.
Telling a fellow forum member to āgo somewhere else and do your stirring…ā is one thing, but it wouldnāt work as a legal defence.
In practice the chance of an individual magazine taking legal action over a single posting is near-zero, but if the number of copyright-busting incidents builds up sufficiently, any magazine’s ‘legal eagle’ will eventually go into attack mode.
The first time I got involved in such a case, it never came to court – another title got in ahead of us with its own legal action and put the offending title out of business.
I was quite amused by seeing one of my news stories ‘shaken up’ into a different paragraph order and reprinted, but the legal department of the publishing house I was working for at that time took a very different view. If the offending magazine had managed to pay the damages from that first case, my employer would probably have administered the coup de grace.
missileereven if i am not neutral in this matter, i would like to
congratulate you for your spotting abilities.In truth, if you take out all the ungracious occurrences
from almost any forum, it usually dies of boredom and
neglect. This may explain that!Good day all.
No spotting skill were needed. Although Mercurius Cantabrigiensis and I rarely have the free time to go drinking in the Eagle public house in Cambridge (his favourite āpubā ā though he starting drinking there some two decades after Crick and Watson), we do stay in regular touch. While the shrugged off the attack on him that was allowed to remain visible, I know that he was angered by having what he considered a legitimate posting censored by a moderator.
I donāt agree that taking out the ungracious postings would cause a thread to die from boredom. The brand of camera that I use has its own forum, where members often engage in heated debates and arguments over subjects such as the relative virtue of once particular lens or graphics software package over another, the allegedly good or bad repair service we have had from the manufacturer, or the best way of shooting in low-light conditions. Tempers can fray at times, but anyone trying personal attacks or rudeness is soon called to order by the other members. The moderator rarely has to intervene.
Perhaps the difference is that many members of that forum are professional photographers, so the āknow-it-allā types soon learn to chose there words carefully unless they want to end up being shown to look foolish. But in the military section of the Key Publishing forum, itās the professionals – those who work in military aerospace or who are in the armed forces ā who have to guard their tongues because of security, while the āknow-it-allsā are free to sound off knowing that the professionals cannot contradict them.
Hell, we used to have a regular poster who would pontificate on every subject from small arms to strategic bombers. To cite the well known poem, it was marvellous how “that one small head could carry all he knew.”
missileerSeem the problem was a minor defect of manufacture on a missile batch :
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=112629
@+, Arka
One of my sources has confirmed that the problem seems to be missile-related.
missileerIf you don’t like what he has to say then take it up with Jackjack via PM’s or report him to the mods if he has done something wrong Nicolas10. Your prior comment is frankly bang out of order!
While I agree that the posting in question was out of order, it is typical of what sometimes passes for debate here. Postings in thread āGeneral Warningā show the sort of inflammatory remarks that the moderators seem happy to ignore. None of them have responded in that thread to justify having left such language on display.
But will reporting a posting to the moderators accomplish anything? When Mercurius Cantabrigiensis was targeted by an abusive post last year, he reported this to the moderators. Nothing was done; the post is still there. But when he posted a message questioning a moderatorās decision on another matter, that posting was deleted within hours.
missileerYeah? I remember when they intended to fly the X-30 to orbit 25 years ago. How’d that work out?
The concept was first conjectured around 15 years ago, but it would be 1990 before an engineering team coalesced. I went to Florida around 1990/91 for a briefing on Pratt & Whitney engine programmes and spent the day at their Palm Beach facility.
No-one was under any illusion that the US know how to build an aircraft capable of flying into orbit. The plan was to build a first X-30 to explore high-speed propulsion, then to use the experience to build a second able to reach orbital velocity.
The P&W engineers were under no doubt that the job would be difficult, but I was surprised by their confidence that it could be done if the funding was made available. It wasnāt.
missileerThat was the Boeing Skyfox… [/URL]
I was briefed on that project – probably still got the brochure somewhere.
Boeing told me that the T-33 had been designed with traditional alloys rather than the ‘very strong but limited fatigue life’ alloys used today. About as likely to run out of airframe life as a DC-3 was, they claimed.
missileerI haven’t seen anything that demonstrates a working prototype that had reached flight testing stage, much less being anywhere near being fielded.
The problem is that Saiga is not being specific about which improved R-77 variant he is talking about.
If he means Izdeliye 170-1, that was originally planned to begin state trials in 2006/7 and is almost certainly what has been designated the RVV-SD for export. That missile exists, and is reported to have a range of x1.5 that of the basic missile. Since the RussAF hasn’t procured the basic R-77, it’s anyone’s guess if they have bought this improved version or are hanging on to await something better. Nor is it clear whether any export customer has adopted the RVV-SD.
Izdeliye 180 is probably still under development. What is probably its dual-mode seeker has been developed, so exists as hardware. Not sure of the status of the new tail fins and actuators, dual-pulse rocket motor, and uprated datalink. But if the planned IOC of 2014 is serious, this stuff must be at a fairly advanced stage.
missileerIf they haven’t spent the money to actually produce a working example, then yes, it’s merely a paper missile.
I donāt think that missile development is quite so clear-cut nowadays.
A lot of development is now done using computer models and other simulations, including hardware-in-the loop (HWIL) testing of critical subsystems. On an expensive programme such as Meteor, flight testing comes at a relatively late stage and after a small number of shots uses what is virtually production hardware. So FMRAAM and ERAAM would have been more than just paper projects.
Iām not sure how far the Russians have gone along that route, but I know that Mercurius Cantabrigiensis has been briefed by the Russians on some of their air-to-air HWIL work. But one of our moderators p****d the old boy off by deleting one of his postings, so he no longer posts here. So I’ll try to ‘pick up the slack’ occasionally on missile subjects. Up till now I’ve made only a handful of postings.
He may still be ‘lurking’ without posting as do a number of other aerospace professionals who just don’t want to get into the sort of squabbling that so often takes place here. A wander around the listing of forum members sometimes reveals interesting (indiscreet might be a better word) usernames that rarely if ever appear on postings!
missileerWho said that ?!
Can you also post some sources?
That are only claims!
The relative capabilities of the ERAAM and FMRAAM were released by Raytheon during a series of press conferences and individual briefings during the evaluation phase of SR(A) 1239, and similar events were organised by MBDA for Meteor. The resulting data was well documented by the technical press at the time.
Magazines such as Aviation Week and Janeās Defence Weekly would have covered the subject in detail, but I think that these are only available on-line to subscribers.
Having reached retirement age, I no longer have access to file copies of these and other magazines unless I make an expensive trip to London to view these at the British Library science reading room. So most of the information I gave you came from my own notes made at the time of the evaluation.
If you could locate a copy of a recent edition of Janeās Air Launched Weapons (perhaps your local library could get it on loan), its entries on AMRAAM, Meteor and the R-77 would have a lot of details you want. But all it would do is to confirm the information I’ve already posted.
missileerI use a Minolta Dimage 5400. Was very expensive (ā¬900,-) 4 or 5 years ago. It has a function which eliminates dust and scratches. The only downside is that this function slows down the scanner dramaticaly. Another problem was that the Minolta Software isn’t supported by Windows Vista. So I still use my old XP driven PC for this scanner.
Take a look at Viewscan – it’s a third-party scanning program that handles a lot of older scanners. I think you can download an evaluation copy. It’s a well-known product, so a Google search should quickly locate it. The author’s name is Hammick.
missileerAnd where is the Meteor superior?
The key to understanding AMRAAM and Meteor performance is the United Kingdom’s Staff Requirement (Air) SR(A)1239. To meet this, the UK RAF conducted a long multi-phase evaluation of the Meteor and two proposed AMRAAM variants, the ERAAM and the FMRAAM.
ERAAM would have combined the AIM-120C-7 guidance and warhead sections with a new dual-pulse solid-propellant rocket motor. Although it did not meet the full UK requirement, given the new rocket motor itās reasonable to assume that it would have been better than the AIM-120C-7.
FMRAAM would have been powered by a liquid-propellant ramjet motor and was intended to meet the full requirement.
So the logic here is that:
Izdeliye 180 is reported to match the performance of the AIM-120C-7.
But the -120C-7 and Izdeliye 180 would have been outperformed by the ERAAM.
And the ERAAM would in turn have been outperformed by the FMRAAM and Meteor.
(I suppose I should mention the RVV-SD export missile revealed last year. This is probably the Izdeliye 170-1, which is lower in performance than Izdeliye 180 version.)
Vympel has been fairly open in providing briefings on its next-generation missiles, and a Vympel technical paper on the subject leaked several years ago. So we have a fairly good idea of what they have in development. Iām not anticipating any surprises from them in the next five years.
Sign In
