Cut off with the insult guys, let be mature about this.

Interesting that we are seeing an AARGM-ER (F-35 int compliant)

So does it fit or not.?

Whilst the F-16 could achieve higher STR than a Mirage 2000 due to the M2000’s poor TWR, ITR was not higher. Even with the 25% advantage in TWR, the F-16 only manages marginally better STR of around 10% at 0 PS and 5% at -800PS.

If SEP is -800 then that isnt a sustain turn , it is instantaneous turn.

Oh, btw, the Su-35S has even higher wingloading vs Vanila Su-27S. I’ve seen figure over 440kg/m2
.

From Su-27 to Su-35 the shape remain the same so i would expect that CL doesnt change, in this case the instantaneous turn performance of Su-35 should be worse than vanilla Su-27

As stated earlier the AESA version has much longer range than the PESA (I believe range was increased by more than 50%).

AESA radar is better than PESA because the low noise amplifier is put in front of lossy components thus they can achieve better signal-noise ratio. But Starfish does get it correct that radar aperture is rather important factor. small PESA on Rafale may out perform the big mechanical array on Typhoon , but i would expected that when they both get AESA , the one on Typhoon will perform better ( better detection range and angular accuracy).

Supermanoeuvrability is energy-manoeuvrability taken to the next extreme and often involves the ability to push high g at supersonic speeds at high altitudes.

Energy maneuverability theory refers to aircraft performance in term of specific excess power ( mostly deal with sustain and instantaneous turn rate )
Super maneuverability often refers to post stall maneuver

not your mum, you can ask as much as you want, won’t bother me. No use acting like a 5 years kid asking for an ice cream.

You are the one who get butt hurt when people want you to explain your theory, but iam the child?. If anything, it you who act like a child, all screaming and desperately accuse people of trolling when they dont believe your BS stories.

Nope, try useful function “find” of your browser i quoted someone from iFi who used this acronym (personally i’m happy with the Digital to Analogic Converter chip of my Cayin N5 btw)

Yes, you put up a paragraph about something that isn’t even related to active cancellation, with some technical words, some acronyms hoping no one will notice, then pretending like it answer the question. Then when people see through that BS , you get mad

.

Gave multiple links, extracts, illustrations etc. From iFi. enuf. There is no worse blind than the one who do not want to see.

Yes, you gave a website from a British Hi-Fi sound company (They basically re write destructive interference using different wording.) and a paragraph about linear regulators. None of which explains the issue with active cancellation jamming raised by others at the start. Next time, you may as well posting link about noise cancellation head phone instead

Because GENERALLY things should happen the way you think they should, that is how they happened? Preclusion… Wellcome to Garry’s fantasy world. An information is a piece that confirms your presupposition, and the rest of course should be discarded as it doese not fit Garry’s world.

Things dont away happen the ways i like. However,unlike you, i dont have to hide behind some made up stories, nor do i need to give a paragraph about something completely unrelated as a distraction from the question people ask me

Not my bad if you do not understand what iFi mother company electronicians wrote. He wrote the system was designed using active cancellation BECAUSE a linear regulator would NOT have fit. And after you pitifully attempt to disclaim “explaining” (sorry copy pasting wikipedia without sourcing your comment) how works what they DID NOT use to say it is not active cancellation… Of course a linear regulator isn’t… And they did not build one!
How typical from you…

And you did not write down any definition, you simply copied wikipedia attempting to explain something you do not comprehend. (otherwise you would have been able to explain it by yourself)I

And i cite what i want to cite, it is not an anonymous armchair expert in wikipedia that will dictate which part of conversations i have i will -or not- cite.

Pathetic again…

So i asked you to explain the relation between the sound system and active cancellation in Spectra, and you reply by talking about something they didn’t use and has nothing to do with active cancellation?
Why dont you cite the part that prove your point that this system use the same principles as active cancellation ?. Oh i know, there isn’t any.

Which acronym did i use? Cite one? Lying again…

DAC chip
.

How would you the heck know who i was talking to at Abingdon Music Research? You claim it was a PR? Prove it! (your way to act usually no)?

Because generally, when you email a company, you will be email there sale board, marketing department.That how firms work, they want to sell their products,no point letting engineers talking directly to customers.

Of course, i guess you know their stuff better than the company involved…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248186[/ATTACH]

Sure, because the French MoD gave new sophisticated military technology to a British Hi-Fi company?