dark light

TomcatViP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 4,921 through 4,935 (of 5,621 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2252825
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    Regarding the two small carriers (small as capable of defending the Amazon river ?), it makes some coherence now.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2253363
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    That “fliend” is the new Y-8GX-8 ELINT-version ! … and the powerplant is the typical latest WJ-6C turboprops with JL-4 6-blade propellers (like the Y-9)

    Thx for the details Deino.

    The engines will also use Chinese-made JL-4 composite-material propellers that look very much like the Dowty R406. While a Dowty role in the JL-4 cannot be confirmed, a loophole in British dual-use military technology export policy that allows for “co-production” but not “sale” might account for the new Chinese propeller.

    Source link (old but interesting):

    http://www.strategycenter.net

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2253428
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    and friend
    http://s9.uploads.ru/FEgTS.jpg

    Interesting powerplant

    in reply to: India- PAK-FA or Rafale??? #2253440
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    @Swerve:

    You are right but not everyone have a 1b pop, is the subcontractor of the entire world and have a potential of growth that will dwarf many countries. Regionally, in Asia, its own sphere of influence, India rises drastically as a superpower. And that moves established order. There is always a critical size beyond which you’ll hve to redirect more resources toward foreign policy.

    Note that I am not over making it. I am not saying that India Mil should see them self as US DoD^10. Responsible and reasonable growth πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: India- PAK-FA or Rafale??? #2253496
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    […] they won’t need more range.

    With a global economy you need range. Range at sea. Penetration. SF. ABM. Deep conventional strike. It doesn’t mean that you gonna use it. It’s plain simple old deterrence. Tickle me with a feather and I will smash you with an hammer. Simple as that.

    Especially a growing economy like India that pass trough a sensitive pace when their population is consolidating itself toward a middle class like society. Destabilization is what they have to fight.

    India 2015 is Fr 1962.

    My own guess is that it’s what Br just did forget.

    in reply to: India- PAK-FA or Rafale??? #2253796
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    […]

    So even without using its six external pylons, PAK-FA has the planed multirole capability of Rafale.

    Edited for you.

    No plane have been seen carrying A2G weapons so far. And the time of introduction is what matter here πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: India- PAK-FA or Rafale??? #2253813
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    Western weapon systems are also sanction-able. The Rafale uses EU or US developed and sourced weapons. Both sources are suspect in terms of long term supply reliability.

    […] your suppliers have had a sudden attack of “morality of war” in the middle of a war, right when you need them and have already paid them so much money.

    This is interesting.

    Don’t forget the allegations done by MD officials that they are leaning toward closing their mil activities*. Not a great source of confidence on the export market…

    * And are they truly sure that this won’t affect the Dassault branding? Ppl buy expensive Falcons because they are like Ferrari, built so-said by a team constantly switching from pointy fighter planes to flying golden eggs!

    in reply to: RAF Red Arrow Scampton ejection service report published #2254325
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    Excellent report. Thx for posting

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2254601
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    Great find!

    So after the vapor pics, they are unveiling the great mystery (drum rolling and trumpets snoring) πŸ™‚

    I did also notice the mention to the pulse engine (again). I have the idea that this is not a coincidence (same derived tech).

    Regarding the “aggressive” S duct, I think that this is just an hijacking of another technical achievement transmuted into a purely mechanical solution for whatever reason that might be based on commercial/financial motivations.

    As I’ve said alrdy, the flow does not “see” the curvature of the S duct.

    in reply to: Modern Military Aviation (During the 1970s & 1980s) #2254604
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]225247[/ATTACH]

    Lots of A-10 pictures during REFORGER:

    http://sobchak.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/addio-agli-a-10-in-europa/

    Thx for the link.

    The polka Dots A10 made my days. I think I did stare at those pictures for hours as a teenager (outsourced from a defunct Belgian magazine, I think).

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2255259
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    ” *and this is where the canarded fighters concept is detrimental to aero efficiency reducing the chord, hence the section unless you accept a thick leading edge and reduce drastically the frontal section to balance for the drag increase, negating the use of a descent sized radar etc…). ”

    I think you need to re-phrase that

    “Canarded”
    is some sort of FrenGlish that I made around the words Canards and CanardΓ© (sniped) to describe how the 1970’s concept of using canards on a small sized fighter had some negative repercussions on its overall performances (IMOHO of course).

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2255271
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    […]

    It is a problem, depending on use. The high wing loading of the F-35 enables excellent stability which is a great virtue of any striker. At the same time, the capabilities for air dominance suffer greatly.

    No, no, no.

    The wing loading doesn’t describe the total lift a wing can generate…. What is utmost essential in a turn with others parameters as drag, trust etc…

    During WWII, it was a commune habits to compare wing loading of fighter since most had the same airfoil characteristic (NACA 23015 – ~Corsair, F6, Fw190, ~Me109…). It is not rightfully true. but give an easy meaning for a comparison.

    Nowadays how do you want to compare when modern fighter use complex aero artifices to generate lift or even degrade it to save for drag (the F16 negative camber during cruise – the reflex curvature on wing – the wing/body liaison* – the apex) ?

    For example, I can use a negatively cambered airfoil on a huge delta wing fitted to my new rounded fuselage. What would be the result? Super-low wing loading and… Drag, drag and super drag. Even a 747 will make rounds around me πŸ˜‰

    *and this is where the canarded fighters concept is detrimental to aero efficiency reducing the chord, hence the section unless you accept a thick leading edge and reduce drastically the frontal section to balance for the drag increase, negating the use of a descently sized radar etc…).

    in reply to: MiG-23MS and Mirage III/5 #2255307
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    […]The Junta projected their own thoughts & feelings onto Britain, instead of studying us. This is the greatest mistake one can make in any negotiation or struggle.

    Excellent!

    Sadly, irrational thinking is not a copyrighted thing. Man can see some clear resurgence of the same type of erroneous behavior nowadays.

    But what are the points regarding the Mirage and the Mig?

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2255664
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    Interception of a WingSuit diver?

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale, News & Discussion (XV) #2255668
    TomcatViP
    Participant

    Failure is not a strategy by it self.

Viewing 15 posts - 4,921 through 4,935 (of 5,621 total)