dark light

Kosmos929

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Tupolev Tu-144 #1102745
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    Thank you!

    in reply to: F-104s in Star Trek #2359894
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    They shoulda had an F-102 or F-106. 🙂

    It’s very likely that no one working on the show knew the difference!

    in reply to: PAK-FA Saga Episode 13 #2411301
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    I doubt they would sacrifice the safety of their men and women for just the WOW effect :rolleyes:.

    You haven’t seen too many two-stars and above in action, have you?

    Kosmos929
    Participant

    According to the old saying, “If she looks good, she’ll fly good!”

    in reply to: PAK-FA Saga Episode 13 #2392030
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    It would probably appear as background radiation to non-AESA radar. But to AESA radar (on opposing force 5th gen aircraft), the pulse should be amplified sufficiently to be recognizable. AESA radars have 2 – 3 times the sensitivity of non-AESA radars.

    Why?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2425321
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    I saw a diagram showing a max dry speed of Mach 1.75 at 35.000 ft.
    Just havn’t been able to re-find it.
    The top dry speed was significantly less at 60.000 ft

    In other words, the F-22 flight envelope (altitude/airspeed) is shaped like that of a conventional fighter, not distorted like that of the SR-71.

    I’ll bet that if one could get a look at a real altitude/Mach (H-M) diagram for the F-22 one would see a big blob of specific excess power (P sub S) right around M=1.5 at 35,000 ft.

    If you find the diagram, please post it.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2428804
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    Why? Or do you think they look exactly the same? Do you really not see any difference?

    If you can accept a gratuitous assertion from an anonymous DoD authority, I can accept my own analysis as equally valid.

    Hyperbolic exaggeration of one’s own capabilities while ignoring similar developments on the part of others is standard operating procedure in the American defense community.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2429342
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    Yes you can consider it to be all aspect, as long as Sukhoi and NPO Saturn do their due diligence and engineer the correct finishing details. Remember, the T-50 that recently flew is a flying qualities airplane at the present time. To become operationally useful, dozens of different stealthy details must be completed. Those details are not trivial and it will take time and money to complete them.

    With the prime minister giving the T-50 close to an absolute national priority (right up there with the Strategic Rocket Forces) money does not seem to be a problem. Time requirements will be eased by having cash. All Sukhoi has to do is be about as competent as Lockheed Martin.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2429769
    Kosmos929
    Participant

    Um, no. The F-35 has all aspect stealth. It’s nozzle is specifically designed to be VLO. The F-35 RCS Pole model has already been up on the perch and guess what…. it met all expectations. The DoD, JPO, and LM have always claimed all-aspect stealth and no credible source has been able to state otherwise.

    While it may not have the RCS reduction numbers of the F-22, it is still considered all-aspect VLO.

    If that is the case, then we can “consider” the T-50 to be all aspect VLO also!

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)