dark light

Rii

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,536 through 2,550 (of 3,311 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread – 19 #2251048
    Rii
    Participant

    It would be quite pointless since Dassault/Thales are supposed to provide India full access and transfert of the technology.

    As I understand it the figure is 60% ToT, and something tells me SPECTRA is part of that other 40%.

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale #14 – News & Discussion #2251140
    Rii
    Participant

    There has to be a separate contract for those 63 units.
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Europe/India-increases-Rafale-fighter-jets-order/Article1-992390.aspx
    But it seems that that contract might be taken up right away.

    Isn’t the point of having the option for an additional 63 airframes in the first place that one doesn’t have to go through the laborious and time consuming contract negotiation process again?

    in reply to: UK replacement MPA, what would you choose #2251143
    Rii
    Participant

    According to Raytheon, the RAF Sentinel and Shadow aircraft could be used for maritime patrol with only a software upgrade. Of course it would probably only be maritime surveillance rather than a full mpa capability but I think it would be a good idea to expand these aircraft’s role given the RAF experience with them.

    I was under the impression that the most pressing issue with the lack of MPA was lack of escorts for the boomers heading out. ISR aircraft (and UAVs) will do nothing to solve that problem, although I agree that it is logical to expand their repertoire to maritime surveillance.

    +1 for C295.

    in reply to: UK replacement MPA, what would you choose #2251252
    Rii
    Participant

    What is a “forward looking infrared radar”?

    http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7874/pnu35220.jpg

    😀

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2013 #2251349
    Rii
    Participant

    Korea and Vietnam cooperation?

    Sure, why not? I know Korea fought with the US in the Vietnam war, but what else is standing in the way?

    Vietnam is on a growth path similar to Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, and other nations that’re looking to build their aerospace capacities as they gain in stature on the world stage. Long-term GDP projections have Vietnam tussling with UK/GR/FR for tenth spot by 2050. In that light, joining KF-X as a junior partner as Indonesia has done seems a sensible long-term strategic investment, in addition to being operationally suitable.

    Apparently Vietnam is buying more Flankers this decade, and upgrading older birds to an “SM” standard.

    Which adds to something I’ve been curious about regarding Indonesia’s stated intention to fill out a squadron of Flankers: where’s the production capacity coming from? Aren’t KnAAPO and Irkut fully booked out for RuAF and moving exclusively to Su-34/35 in any case?

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2013 #2251447
    Rii
    Participant

    Let’s not get carried away. There will be flankers over the skies of Vietnam for decades to come.

    Vietnam is likely to want to induct something in the 2020s to counter J-20 et al. F-35 is far-fetched at this point I agree, but a lot can change by 2025.

    Personally I think they should’ve bought into the KF-X program to provide a ‘lo’ to a future T-50 ‘hi’.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2013 #2251934
    Rii
    Participant

    I must admit Vietnam’s gentle move into buying Western equipment is fascinating.

    Perhaps Vietnam isn’t as safe a bet for T-50/PAK FA in future as it once seemed. F-35 for VPAF…? A lot can change in 10-15 years.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 11 #2254065
    Rii
    Participant

    Well Li Na just beat Maria Sharapova to reach final of Australian Open, now China can buy Su-35 without loss of face. :p

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 11 #2254081
    Rii
    Participant

    And your companies work under the rules of a “free” economy?? 😀

    Indeed. Laissez-faire capitalism has a very limited role to play in military matters and other items of strategic significance. The Americans are particularly deluded about this as their domestic market is generally large enough to afford a degree of market operation, yet even there when push comes to shove — e.g. submarine construction — the free market goes out the window, which is as it should be.

    in reply to: Stealth fighter vs stealth ship #2254132
    Rii
    Participant

    I recall a NATO tech book indicate you only need 3 pixels to ID an object as tank and 5 pixels to know type, iirc! It’s not an image that a human can recognize.

    I find this difficult to believe. Object recognition is still, I believe, one of the major stumbling blocks for autonomous systems. Computers are rubbish at it compared to humans, who have evolved under the necessity of distinguishing a tiger amidst the concealing grass. Both air and (calm) sea environments are very favourable conditions for object recognition, not only because of the relatively uniform background but also because of the limited range of objects that need to be identified. Identifying a tank amidst varied terrain and terrain features, amidst an assortment of similarly sized/shaped objects, etc. is an order of magnitude more difficult.

    in reply to: Stealth fighter vs stealth ship #2254490
    Rii
    Participant

    You’re missing the point. I was responding to Rii’s comment about the ship being nearly the same temp as the surrounding water. These pictures clearly show that not to be the case for EOTS and EODAS.

    I never suggested that aircraft couldn’t detect and identify ships using IR sensors. What I suggested (or rather implicitly hypothesised) was that if the aircraft can identify the ship using IR, then the ship can identify the aircraft using IR also. Even if that aircraft is a wunderbar F-35.

    I’m not an expert on IR systems (or anything else, duh) but I’m aware that temperature difference between the target and background plays a significant role in their functioning, and there is a much larger temperature delta for the aircraft than for the ship, in part because the air is much colder at altitude, in part because the ship experiences negligible friction heating, and in part because the ship’s primary sources of heat are embedded within and dissipated throughout a large hull. And of course the sensor on the ship can be significantly larger (and be backed by more processing) than the sensor on the aircraft. If you are aware of additional, mitigating, or countervailing factors of relevance, feel free to share. I am here to learn.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 11 #2255042
    Rii
    Participant

    Well Su 35 is no slower than the Su 27,Su 35 is capable of Mach 2.3+ while the Rafale and Typhoon are capable of Mach 1.8+
    Su 35 is said to be capable of supercruise at M1.3
    What is the Typhoon supercruise speed and can Rafale supercruise at all?

    The leaked Swiss evaluation had Typhoon recorded at M1.4 without afterburner. No doubt this is under near-optimal circumstances as we can assume the Su-35 figure is.

    I’m not aware of any hard numbers for Rafale, but given the report here of Mach 0.9 at 50% throttle and full ordinance load I think we can assume that it has at least limited supercruise capability in less demanding configs.

    For all that Su-35 is an impressive aircraft the basic airframe design is still a generation behind Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen and this is reflected across the flight regime. If you like I’ll grant that Rafale probably isn’t any faster on military power than Su-35 and likely has inferior top speed and similar acceleration characteristics — accomplishing by design elegance what Su-35 does with raw horsepower. In the case of Typhoon, though, I’d put good money on it flying rings around Su-35 — and anything else bar F-22/T-50.

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2255062
    Rii
    Participant

    The reason F-22 doesn’t deter anything is because the United States exerts overwhelming dominance with or without it. In that respect it is probably true that it is a waste of money.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 11 #2255069
    Rii
    Participant

    I also forgot to mention Su 35 is also good deal faster than the Rafale and Typhoon.

    [citation needed]

    in reply to: Stealth fighter vs stealth ship #2255074
    Rii
    Participant

    the FLIR in the plane will detect the ship long before an IRST on the ship could see the plane.

    Why? The temperature difference between ship and surrounding environment is much smaller than that between aircraft and surrounding environment.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,536 through 2,550 (of 3,311 total)