Ah, OK. Thank you for the clarification.

Wasn’t there also some kind of SNAFU with the IRIS-T the Austrian government still ordered with their downgraded specs as decided by themselves (no PIRATE, no Striker, no RWR threat libraries?), turning the missiles into expensive sidewinders and not being able to use their full potential?

http://www.airpower.at/news07/0715_iris-t/index.html

Thmor bring the proof that the RBE2 can pulse compression!
Bring the proof that a PESA has no NULL SPOTS!

The biggest problem with a phase shifter is, it is frequency dependent.
In order to use a complex waveform, you need time shift insensitive to
frequency, it is possible only with DSP and discret T/R modules (AESA).

With spinup is 70-75 round in the first sekond for a A1 and more for a hydraulic driven A2. Normal is a burst limited on 20 to 25 rounds.
Therefore acedmic. The Thyphoon Mauser BK-27 deliver in the first 0,5s 4 kg rounds, the M61 only 2 kg. 😀

http://vanfossen.wordpress.com/2006/04/14/boeing-787-upgrades-to-lightning-protection-and-defense/

Boeing engineers designing the 787 face new challenges, since they are building the first commercial airframe made entirely from carbon fiber-based plastic.

The composite airframe will not readily conduct lightning away, as traditional metal ones do.

That means Boeing will have to do more to prevent lightning from damaging the planes, said Ed Rupke, senior engineer with respected consulting firm Lightning Technologies of Pittsfield, Mass.

An airplane often actually triggers a lightning bolt to the nose, the leading edges, the tail or the wings as it flies through an electrically charged cloud. The main danger airplane designers must guard against is sparking inside the wings, which serve as the jet’s main fuel tanks.

Most of the time, after a flash and a bang, lightning damage is minimal, and airplanes fly on to their destinations.

The initial lightning strike must be dispersed quickly around the airframe to prevent concentrated damage.
The airplane’s electronic flight instruments must be shielded from disruption by the intense electromagnetic field.
A slight gap between a wing-skin fastener and the hole it goes into could be a source of sparking as current jumps the gap. Boeing will install each fastener precisely and seal it on the inside to ensure a snug, spark-free fit.
Any gap inside the wings where the wing skin meets internal structural spars could cause a spraying out of electrons in a lightning strike — a phenomenon called “edge glow.” Boeing will seal the edges with nonconducting goop or glass fiber.

Boeing will install a nitrogen-generating system (NGS) that reduces flammable vapor in the wing tanks by filling the space above the fuel with inert gas, as a backup in case other methods fail.

The team recommended making the NGS system “dispatch critical,” meaning the airplane is not allowed to take off if the nitrogen system isn’t functioning.

A sloted mechanical antenna has no more siedelobes as a sloted PESA antenna. Why? it’s the same antenna system!
PESA produce because of the phaseshifters between the diskret steps
extra sidelobes. Why? Between the steps is no defined beam direction!

Oh poor Scorsch. The poor German doesn’t like the fact that Boeing is stomping Airbus’ backside. There is a reason for that. Try and figure it out.

I seriously doubt Airbus would even survive without constant government aid.

LOL! I find anything that comes out of Airbus as suspect.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/1191&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

US-Boeing: EU takes US to the WTO over subsidies granted to Boeing

Today, the EU has requested consultations with the United States in the World Trade Organization (WTO) on massive subsidies granted to Boeing. The EU believes that these subsidies are in serious violation of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The US launched a case regarding European support to Airbus earlier in the day. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy stated: “The US move in the WTO concerning European support to Airbus is obviously an attempt to divert attention from Boeing’s self-inflicted decline. It also shows that the US were never seriously interested in seeking to renegotiate the existing 92 EU-US Bilateral Agreement. . If this is the path the US has chosen, we accept the challenge, not least because it is high time to put an end to massive illegal US subsidies to Boeing which damage Airbus, in particular those for Boeing’s new 7E7 programme. Nonetheless, it is a pity that the US has chosen to go to litigation which could destabilize trade and investment, including in Boeing’s 7E7 project. Aerospace workers can rely on the European Commission to defend their interests. ”

For many years the US Government has subsidised Boeing, mainly by paying research and development costs through NASA, the Department of Defence, the Department of Commerce and other government agencies. Since 1992 Boeing has received around $ 23 billion in US subsidies. Moreover, the US Government continues to grant Boeing around USD 200 million per year in export subsidies under the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (the successor to the “FSC” – Foreign Sales Corporations legislation), despite a WTO ruling expressly declaring these subsidies illegal.

The latest and most flagrant violation consists in massive subsidies of about US $ 3.2 billion, inter alia in the form of tax reductions and exemptions and infrastructure support for the development and production of Boeing’s 7E7, also known as “Dreamliner”. The evidence the European Commission has collected over the years clearly demonstrates that the above subsidies violate the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

Moreover, they also violate the 1992 EU-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft which regulates precisely the forms and level of government support the US and the EU provide to Boeing and Airbus respectively.

Despite repeated invitations by the Commission, the US has declined to participate in the bilateral consultations stipulated by the 1992 Agreement for more than two years.

Nonetheless, further to a US request only a few weeks ago, the Commission agreed to discuss the question of a possible revision of the 1992 Agreement provided that this would cover all forms of subsidies including those used in the US, and that the US would bring any subsidies for the Boeing 7E7 into conformity with the 1992 Agreement.

Finally, and just when these discussions were taking place (most recently in a constructive meeting on 16 September), the US requested WTO consultations on European support to Airbus. This suggests that the US request for re-negotiation of the 1992 Agreement was never particularly serious.

WTO consultation and dispute settlement procedures

The first step in a WTO dispute settlement is a request for consultation from the complaining member. The defendant has 10 days to reply to the request and shall enter into consultation within a period of no more than 30 days (unless otherwise agreed by the 2 parties). The consultation should aim at finding a positive solution to the issue at stake.

If the consultations fail to settle the dispute within 60 days after the date of receipt of the consultation request, the complaining party may request the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish a Panel (however, the complaining party may request a panel during the 60 day period if the 2 parties considers that the consultations have failed to settle the dispute).

Once the panelists are nominated, the complaining party has normally between 3 and 6 weeks to file its first written submission and the party complained against another 2/3 weeks to respond. Two oral hearings and a second written submission follow. On average a panel procedure lasts 12 months. This can be followed by an appeal that should not last longer than 90 days.

The Economist wrote the following in an article in June 2006: “Boeing once toyed with a blended wing-body, a sort of flying wing, to produce dramatically better aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. Passengers would have sat in a wide cabin, rather like a small amphitheater. But tests with a mock-up produced such a negative reaction that the company dropped the technology, except for military refueling aircraft.” In fact, the original concept of a blended wing-body goes back to the jet bombers the Germans were designing at the very end of World War II. This concept was also developed at McDonnell Douglas in the ’90s, just prior to their merging into Boeing, and was presented during an annual Joint AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEA Propulsion Conference in the US a few years ago. The McDonnell Douglas engineers were confident their design had all the advantages mentioned, but their concept found no favor at Boeing.

Man understand this, the DELTA wings always bleed energy faster than other type of higher aspect ratio wings however canards and instability increase their capability and high AoA handling, but the fact the Gripen has a difference of 10 deg/s between the instantaneous and sustained turn rate shows very clearly still it bleeds energy faster however now they do much better than the IAI Kfir or Viggen, yeah they are much better than the old stable canard delta aircraft, in fact see the IAI Kfir has a big difference of 9 deg/s between its sustained and instantaneous turn rates too.

The MiG-29, F-16, Su-27, F-15 F-18 do not show the same difference because their wings have higher aspect ratios:D 😉

Deltas and Canards are two totally different aerodynamic things.
Exactly like a Deltawing completely differently functions like a normal wing.
An advantage is that as the angle of attack increases the leading edge of the Deltawing generates a vortex which remains attached to the upper surface of the wing, giving the delta a very high stall angle. A normal wing built for high speed use is typically dangerous at low speeds, but in this regime the delta changes over to a mode of lift based on the vortex it generates. The canard vortex increads the lift of the main wing! Why bleed a Delta energy faster? It’s need more AoA for a turn as a Canard. Because the lever arm is shorter for the elevator! On the EF, Gripen and Rafale, pitch control is provided by symmetric operation of foreplanes and wing flaperons.