Adrian_44RE: F-15,16 limitations in comp. with MiG’s
> seahawk
> try a 9G turn with any SU-27 derivate and 80% internal fuel load
Yes but in manervers such as the cobra or hook, the controllability would be lost at eighty percent fuel load.
Smart money says the incident just east and between of North Cape and Bear Island offers some insight.
The US Navy had been having a naval exercise in the northern Norwegian Sea. Su-27 started harrassing the P-3 Orions which normally patrolled that area. On the final day of the exercise the carrier sent two F-14D’s to escort the P-3. The F-14’s flew in very tight formation with the P-3, until Norwegian GCI warn them of approaching aircraft. When the Su-27’s got close, the F-14D’s broke formation and rode the tails of the Su-27’s. There was a big party aboard the carrier that night with gun camera footage being shown.
> aerospacetech
> Not a fair comparison; the Su-27 carries a load more internal fuel.
Why isn’t it fair? You compare the F-14 to the F-15 and they have signicant difference in fuel loads. The F-14A was asked to do combat against the F-15A when the Had 10,000 pounds of thrust per engine more than the F-14A and the F-14A weighs 20,000 pounds (approximately) more than the F-15A!
In the real world there are no “handicap point” in aerial combat. A plane is as good as it is and the people must do their best to operate in such a manner that the aircraft is combat capable.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Radars!?!
If you guys think the NSA or CIA are willing to spend $50,000 for “PER” IC in low volumn and get just commerical grade custom circuits then, there is a lot about secret programs the US Military/Government you need to learn.
Do you think Intel, AMD and, other companies pay all their R&D cost they need to educate themselves. (That will be difficult because this sort of stuff does not show up on company statement for investors to see. These are projects which use special development diffusion furnaces.
> fft
> > Intel with 0.09 micron has found it difficult
These technicle papers (below) are taking about “openly” gate lengths (gate lengths determine the transistor response time), down to 0.05µ a dozen plus years ago.
REFERENCES
Research papers from early to mid 1990’s gate lengths of 0.05
http://research.cs.tamu.edu/eda/people/sagar/research/IDDQ-testing.pdf
———————
http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV6Beckett.pdf Page #3
EXCERPT: [These are technicle papers from the previous decade.]
Finally, semiconductor behaviour has recently been demonstrated within very narrow carbon nanotube (fullerenen) based structures (Wilson et al 2000). Nanotube technology may eventually supposrt the construction of non-volatile RAM and logic function at integrated levels approaching 10¹² elements/cm², operating frequencie in excess of 100GHz
These are just two URL’s which somewhat illustrate my point, this is what is available in the open press. I remember back in 1968 when a scientist from TI wrote a paper that stated 10MHz was the upper speed limit for P-channel MOS circuits. At American Micro System Inc. we already had a shift register that ran between 10-12MHz.
I went to the “Dogpile” search engine and search for, “integrated circuits” + “CMOS” + “channel lengths” + “forecast.” When I searched for “IST Forecast,” I got 24 hits.
When North Korea captured the USS Pueblo, do you think the Soviets made such a lucrative deal with the North Korean for circuit they could have purchased through some “dummy company?”
When the P-3 Orion landed at the PRC air base, do you think so much effort to remove all avionics on the P-3 if they could tell how advanced American semiconductors were through commercial means?
Guess what the CIA and NSA are purchasing in the way of technology now? BE REAL!!
> SwingKid
> Engineers from former eastern europe have also occasionally
> described this as part of their job – chiselling away western
> ICs to reverse-engineer
Here in the Valley reverse engineering is very common. Some company comes out with a new circuit making bunches of money. You don’t have a year plus to get a counter to that product on the market, so you use acide to open the other company’s package. If you use force you can break the bonding wires.
You take the exposed circuit down to a micro-photographer, have him make several photographs of each area make prints accurately to 1,000X or 2,000. Place your grid paper/mylar over the photograph and copy the drawings. This works if your company and your competitor use very similar processes. Very little support engineering is required.
The real problem can occur if the original company is able to disguise a circuit element like a diode.
National Semiconductor came out with a circuit back around 1972 called the LM-109. A voltage regulator that could control the output voltage to a ripple of five milli-volts. NS charged $36 in quantities of 1,000 or more for the one amp version and $27 for the 100 milli-amp version. For eighteen months NS was the only company which sold this product. The Indian General came out with their competitor at the same prices. The next day NS reduced their prices to $27 and $18, thus cutting a lot of profit out of the project IG had planned to make!!!
> The F-15C was using a Commodore 64-level processor in the APG-63
The F-22 is a different animal, its radar changes frequency and power level with each pulse and the F-22 has only one computer, not a computer for each major systems. The F-15 has a flight dynamics, fire control, radar and, a couple of others. The F-22 has just the two computers that the USAF says has the computing power of a cray supercomputer, that statememt is made for a reason.
> crobato
> You can sandpaper the label off any chip you see in the market today,
> just white dye printed on plastic.
Use sand paper and leave marks, if you are trying to fool someone and that someone have access to powerful microscopes. People who take this sort of approach when they try and run a skeem on a customer and get caught! Being a design draftsman when these skeems go wrong, it affects management and marketing. It is so funny to watch the “fit hit the shan!”
> You’re just preaching, that’s all I can say.
Yes but from someone who has worked in the industry for over three decades and has firsthand knowledge of which I speak! If you believe commercial circuits are ahead of military technology then you will probably believe the latest Air Bus or B-777 have later technology than that the military use.
> aerospacetech
> my information comes from a Raytheon publication. You might not
> like it, but the truth is the F/A-22 does use old processors.
“Let us agree to disagree!” There is conflicting information on the Internet about it.
There is some information saying it is a 25MHz computer and other information saying it is a custom chip from Silicon Graphics!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Some numbers for the APG-63(V)2
> google
> Can detect cruise-missile sized target at 50 nautical miles
At what altitude is that from? The F-14A’s AWG-9 could do this from 20,000 feet. It could not lock-on at this altitude, it would have to get closer or lower its altitude. That way the reflection from the target and the reflection from the background is a greater percentage of the travel time.
> 714 hours MTBF
That is a very good figure.
> Extremely heavy; the radar weighs about 400 lbs
Are you sure that is pounds and not kilograms? The radar for the F-16A weighed only 260 pounds! The AWG-9 for the F-14A weighed almost 1,200 pounds!
I would suspect it is kilograms because the USAF/NORAD seriously studied the possible usage of a AWG-9 to give the F-15 interceptors a greater capability.
The studied showed the F-14 would be the best interceptor in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The study done by the North Dakota Air National Guard indicated that the best interceptor to replace the F-106 are listed in the following order;
1) F-14A Tomcat
2) F-15A Eagle
3) F-4 Phantom 2 (SEE NOTE)
4) F-16A Fighting Falcon
NOTE:
Actually, the F-4 was the new version with active LEX, the radar for the F/A-18A and, other modifications.
Notice the F/A-18A was not included in this list!
The study concluded that a F-15 modified to carry two AIM-54A Phoenix Missiles would have less range and or loiter time than a F-14A with six Phoenix Missiles.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Radars!?!
> crobato
> For someone living in California, you seem to strike me as someone who
> has never seen an IC package before.
You have got to kidding! I saw my first IC in 1962 and held one in my hand in 1966. I was the “world’s first” AfricanAmerican IC Layout Draftsman, back in August of 1966. I have seen the area we used to use for a contact/via is now occupied by a RAM cell!
If you mean can someone erase the ink and place their logo on a circuit, yeah that has happened many times before. All is well until some curious engineer opens up the package and looks under the microscope and the game is up. Many companies here in the “Valley” have pull that trick, only to be caught some time later. Then lawyers are involved and it gets real ugly.
> Get a little piece of sandpaper and SCRUB the labels off. That hard to do?
Actually, acetate or some other chemicle does a better job without leaving any marks on the package. Many people who work at companies that use IC’s on PC boards are curious about what is inside. Some engineer pops the top and the company logo and the real company shows on the chip! There is “no way” to remove the logo because it is part of the proccesing of the chip.
National Semiconductor (NS) signed a contract to ship some circuits to another company. Something happened with diffusion furnaces and the company had to shut down several production lines. To fulfill their contract, NS signed a contract with Hugh’s Aircraft -Semiconductor division to purchase just the IC/die. NS started shipping the parts. Some wise guy popped the lid on one of the packages and saw it was not a NS circuit! Two days later it hit the news that NS could not meet its commitment in producing chips, that something had happened to the production line. The next day NS’s stock had to be cut off from trading on the NYSE! The price had already moved from $42+ per share down to $31+ per share, the following day it was at $28 and finally levelled of at $19+ per share. It only took five days for this to occur. The whole story got out and the world saw the situation was not as bad as originally thought and it took two months for the stock to get back to $36+ per share.
> There is no microcomputer around with 10.5GHz, and you will be lucky
> if the next set of computers for the F-22 will go past 300Mhz
Who said it was a micro computer, this is a small mainframe computer!
> fft
> A clock speed of 10.5 GHz seems to very difficult to believe
Why??? Do you think the latest in microcircuitry is used for civilian circuits? Heaven’s no, the process is developed on projects for NASA or US Military. They are the only one’s who can afford such cost. (I worked on a project at American Micro System where NASA paid $50,000 for each chip, a “Content Addressible RAM” (it reads, writes and, compares at the bit level) The circuit was for the IMP satellite designed by the University of Michigan.) The process is developed in secret and as it becomes more profitable it is finally transferred (with Government permission) to the civilian sector.
Government permission is required because in the contract all information that is developed in the project is the property of the US Government. (Much like Lockeed required permission from the CIA to show those in the Project Harvey, that while Lockeed did not have a fighter in production, they knew far more about stealth than any of the other companies due to the SR-71/A-12 projects.)
> Intel with 0.09 micron has found it difficult to cross 3.4 GHz barrier
Before Intel can produce a chip with this technology, it must be economical. Those who produce circuits for the USAF were working on 1.0µ to 1.4µ gate lengths (CMOS) back in the early 1980’s. It was in the early 1980’s that I first heard that Hewitt Packard R&D Labs had produced a circuit with 1.0µ metal lines! The rest of the industry was doing 5.0µ technology.
How long has this country had the Cray super computers? When it was introduced system clock speeds were below 25MHz.
> Also designing A/D converters for such frequencies will be extremely hard.
Most lilely they are not using A/D or D/A converters. They either use some digital technique or use a ROM! For any given input, the output is…! ROMs are small and real cheap. Either as separate chips or as embedded circuits within another circuit.
> 128-bit architecture also does not make sense
It does if you are using some very complex calculations! The word length twice as long would give you a many fold increase in ability. Much like when the Pentium went from a 16byte to 32byte architectures. Look at the leap in both clock speeds and complexity of the problems that can be solved in the same spand of time.
> F/A-22 CIP is based on a few custom ASICs and a number of 32bit Intel
> i960MX processors running at 25MHz made on an earth-shattering 0.8
> micron process
Think about it, every other thing about the F-22 is a quantum leap ahead of any other aircraft in operation or in development. Does it sound logical that a plane this advance would use a computer from the late 1980’s? Or, does it make more sense to have a circuit that was an R&D project in an advance lab? Realizing that lab toys are often 10, 15 or almost 20 years ahead of “state of the art” in the civilian market.
I just remembered a company named MIPS was producing circuits with clock speeds of 100MHz when the Mac was being introduced!
> the F/A-22 CIP is based on a few custom ASICs and a number of 32bit
> Intel i960MX processors running at 25MHz
This contradicts information released by the USAF. This aircraft is “not” like the aegis which was able to use commercial circuits. These are all custom circuits.
> I would have to add that Adrian’s comment is complete nonsense. There
> is no microcomputer around with 10.5GHz
There are computers in stores around in the USA that have clock speeds of 3.0+GHz!
If you truely feel that what you can what into a store and buy is the latest in technology, you are sadly mistakened. As one who work in the semiconductor as a “layout Draftman”, “Layout Design Draftsman” and, finally “Layout Engineer.” Nineteen companies I worked for in thirty-four years, I have seen a lot.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Radars!?!
Sorry, I have been gone so long. I found a website by accident in which the statment was made that of all the operational IR systems today the greatest detection range of the F-22 is 18 miles!!
Then my computer crashed and I have not been able to find the site again! Sorry this is long again -Adrian
> dionis
> there’s an argument about US vs Russian fighters, people always claim the US is better in BVR. Unfortunately, there’s never any information quoted on what kind of radars the US planes even use…
> crobato
> The Russians have pretty much access to the same COTS
Yes but, do you really feel the Russians would wants a plane shot down or a tank knocked out and, from the side of a radio where the case is bent open and see labels like Mortarola, Intel, TI, etc.? Or have a weapon system stolen and find IC’s with no label and inside the IC packages find parts from American manufacturers.
ONE HELL OF A PIECE OF HUMBLE PIE THAT WOULD BE!
> COTS (stupid acronym for Commercial Off The Shelf)
Americans love acronyms, our technicle and medical language is full of acronyms….. so cute some not so cute.
> The micron sizes for any current COTS is generations ahead of the most
> advanced military electronics technologies because Moore’s cycle occurs
> so much faster than military certification cycles.
Yes, and for the people who work in the field it is a monster to deal with, the changes are constant and it depends on which technology you are talking about.
I did integrated circuit layout for thirty-four years. I watched a large chip go from two hundred transistors and 2.5 mm per side to the monster micro processors we have today. Today’s large circuits are more than 20mm per side and contain more than 100 million transistors!
If car manufacturers could improve the product and cut the cost, think how cheap a car would be?
> a Russian regulation that allows only domestically made components are
> allowed for RuAF consumption
That is smart! An American judge in a court case filed by Sony, said that excluding foreign manufacturers from bidding on weapons contracts was discriminatory! Talking about taking legal theory to military/national security absurdity is truely rediculus!!!!
> a DSP inside a certain active radar missile seeker may be forced to use
> only Russian made and branded DSPs, but the same version of the seeker
> for export may be using COTS DSPs from Texas Instruments.
That makes good sense, why re-invent the wheel? At least this way Russia does not have to worry like China or the USA does, what happens if Japan for some reason decides to boycott sending state of the art chips used in weapon systems?
> The Luftwaffe pilots
> have stated that what the specification sheet passed out at airshows
> where clients are looking to purchase aircraft differs greatly from the
> actual performance.
It is not ridiculus, the spec sheets for the equipment did not match the performance, it is just that simple.
> That’s nonsense. The Luftwaffe planes are degraded from the beginning.
The equipment the Luftwaffe had specs, the specs were not for some other equipment or some other variation, it was for what they had and the equiptment did not perform and advertised.
> It’s like judging the entire F-16 family just because you have a Block 10
> F-16A as an example
While we are at if one gets a spec sheet for F-16A, I would expect it to perform like an F-16A.
The USA also sells some equipment that does not have used by US forces. When it is used in combat, we don’t make excuses! The weapon worked well or it didn’t work well! If it didn’t then make changes so next time it will.
Don’t cry and blame advertising because of faulty, incomplete or, second rate systems.
If you don’t like the way the “parred down” systems work, don’t sell them that way! When you sell equipment, you sell it with conditions to be met. American aircraft are sold and the quality of the airfields are required to be up to a certain level, the maintenance has certain requirements and, pilot training requires “X” amount of hours per year. Pilots are required to take certain courses and maintain a certain level of proficiency or they are washed out. The French are the same way and the results show, looking at countries which have French of some other non-American made aircraft, pilots who fly French aircraft have a flight proficiency the non-French pilots did not have. When you read about encounters between US aircraft and aircraft from another country (Libya, Iraq, etc.), the US pilots talk about the greater difficulty in dealing with the French trained pilots versus non-French pilots.
> You don’t use P4s or Athlons. You use embedded low powered microcontrollers
> generally between 33MHz to 100MHz in speed
One thing you must remember is that embedded arrays are an inefficient usage of silicon! You are basically taking placing transistors in an array and to make a circuit you change the metal interconnect. As long as you don’t need state of the art performance, all is well.
> i486 or Motorola 68XXX architectures, or RISC like ARM, MIPS, AMD 29000,
> and PowerPC.
Architecture is everything…. whether your circuit has the RISC capability, or how many MIPS is totally based upon this feature.
> vortex
> i could’ve sware quite some of these “COTS” electronics are export
> restricted
For you and I there are restrictions, for organizations like the KGB…. what are “export restrictions?” It really depends on what you are trying to obtain also. If you can a circuit in a rating other than “Mil Specs” you can possibly obtain some circuits.
Yes, if you work for some companies and you have to travel outside the USA, there is certain software you are not allowed to travel with!
>> Adrian
>> to AWACS American aircraft went into battle without any “GCI type” support
>> American aircraft have AWACS is not an advantage, it is a leveling of the
>> field against GCI.
> Arthur
> That’s not true, Adrian.
> squadrons) operated under strict GCI from the early 1950s on, in fact
> under a more strict and ground-controlled environment than their
> Soviet counterparts.
The tight control for NORAD was to avoid an international incident. The US forces never shot down an airliner for violating restricted air space. (Two Cessnas in two separate incidents were shot down for violating restricted airspace!)
> well before AWACS were in active military service in the US, there was
> a large urge to keep US aircraft inside a ground-controlled environment
It was one type of control that existed when US air space was being violated and another when it was a foreign air space.
Several times during Korea US pilots did not break off the chase at the Chinese border and in a couple of cases straffed PRC bases. The same sort of thing happened over Viet Nam where US carrier pilots deviated from their assigned mission! Somewhat like “Flight of The Intruder,” not to the same extent.
> Not only for interception tasks, but also for attack missions.
We learned a few things from Korea! BUT…. the US forces realized that aircraft could fly at many altitudes where US radar coverage was incomplete. We never wanted to send US pilots in a place like “MiG Alley,” without support again.
>> Adrian
>> Prior to AWACS American aircraft went into battle without any “GCI
>> type” support
>> it is a leveling of the field against GCI.
> Arthur
> a number of air defense-tasked USN squadrons and a whole number of Canadian
> squadrons) operated under strict GCI from the early 1950s on
Yes the USA did not want WW3 because of one or two fighter pilots.
Now let us look at combat zones, the UN Forces had no support against the MiG.-15’s from GCI. In Viet Nam, Red Crown had so many problems it wasn’t funny! Detecting NVAF aircraft under 10,000 feet inland many times and places was impossible and the NVAF knew where these places were. The EC-121’s serving as Red Crown was a little better as long as the US aircraft had real altitude! A large amount of time US forces were on their own when in combat.
The PGW#1 was the first US/Allies had the advantage because the AWACS was more jam resistant than the radars being used by the Iraqis. During the first attacks Bagdad was being protected by French, Soviet and, US made radars. and the French had integrated the whole system.
> Harry
> Quite the opposite. The N019 has significantly greater range than the
> APG-66 and probably around the same range as the APG-65 and it’s
> processing power is less than the processing power of both those radars.
That is what I was saying to Arthur, the spec sheet and field performance don’t match. It processing power is actually less but, the orignal advertisement boast that the processor speed was faster than the American counter-parts, of which it is but, due to its logic design its processing power is less. When NATO found out this last bit of information, it took a sigh of relief.
>> The Luftwaffe pilots
>> have stated that what the specification sheet passed out at airshows
>> where clients are looking to purchase aircraft differs greatly from the
>> actual performance.
> Which is applicable to just about every piece of commercial and military
> hardware in the world.
There is a certain degree of deviation that is allowable and it is usually spelled out on the spec sheet. Just like the spec sheets for IC’s, they spell out the deviation in the power supplies, signals (in voltage and timing), etc.)
> Don’t forget that the Luftwaffe’s MiG-29As were heavily downgraded aircraft.
Do you truely believe the Soviets would place worst of all possible grades of MiG.-29’s in the front line directly across from West Germany?? Wouldn’t be smarter to keep the late model MiG.-23’s they had if they were more capable.
The Soviets certainly did not place any “B” Army right across the Inter-German Border from the Americans, think about it!
> fft
> While it is fairly easy to buy a generic CPU (say P4 or athlon) but does’nt
> these CPU’s have to be “ruggidized”
Companies like Inter, TI, Motorola, etc. no longer try to “qualify” their processes for Mil Specs. It cost to much money and the process changes entirely to often. By the time you qualify the process, it is time to move on to the next generation of circuits.
So if the circuit needs to be in a harsh envirement, then some other engineering solution would be needed.
> One great advanatge of COTS should be the availabilty of mature and
> advanced development tools (e.g. compilers) and skilled programmers.
Changing compilers, gate lengths, etc. calls for a different process! Since gate length or depth of the material being defused into the base material is all controlled by the process. One is a function of the other.
Now, if you are well below state of the art then adjustments like this can be made.
> dionis
> the 180 or so Russian Mig-29SMTs will have the NIIR Zhuk ME radars. Those
> are quite good.
It takes a while to get it straight. When a weapon system is first defined, there are all sorts of hopes and dreams. Some of the dreams work and some don’t. Some of the dreams that don’t but, would be great to work the analysis work has to be done to find out why the system doesn’t work and what is needed to get it to work.
While COTs can be used for many circuits, circuitry for the F-22 and many other weapon system is far in advance of what you will be able to obtain anytime soon. The computers for the F-22 have a clock speed of 10.5 GigaHtz and a 128 byte architecture. Most main frame computers do not have that capability.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15,16 limitations in comp. with MiG’s
Sorry, I have been gone so long. I found a website by accident in which the statment was made that of all the operational IR systems today the greatest detection range of the F-22 is 18 miles!!
Then my computer crashed and I have not been able to find the site again! Sorry this is long again -Adrian
> MPJay
> The F-14 also has an empty weight over 10 thousand lbs greater than
> the Eagle, that’s a lot of structure
An F-14D weighs a little over 13,000 pounds in weight, empty. Now that is compared to the F-15C. The difference was greater between the F-14A and the F-15A! Remember the F-15A did not have conformal fuel tanks!
I remember my friend Art telling me about an exercise in which he was 1V2 against two F-15A’s and he was wondering how he would maneuver to try and separate the F-15’s in an effort to kill one of them. He remembered distinctly because his F-14A was almost 20,000 pounds heavier than the F-15A’s and the F-15A’s had almost 20,000 pounds of thrust more from the engines. This occurred about three hundred miles from the carrier and he was on patrol when the F-15’s showed up.
Both he and the F-15’s were trying to stay out of the high percentage kill shot area, so there was a lot of maneuvering. In this relatively low to medium speed fight the F-15’s kept working the verticle. His maneuvering was not enough to counter. Finally, he lost enough energy and, they came down converting altitude for speed and angles…… he was dead!
> after the prototype crashed, they actually recovered the wing sweep
> box intact and used it as a training fixture of some kind
Yes, the wing box is incredibly strong due to the electron beam welding. After about two decades it appeared that the wing box was “over designed!” It was far stronger than it needed to be, it could have been made lighter…. in hindsight.
> over G
> Adrian, the f15a basic specification
> that turn rate is wrong, the main goal was reach 7gs at lower speeds
> than the f4.
This statistic was for a “corner velocity” for sea level and the “G-load” was not specified! Another statistic revealed was, when combining an instantaneous turn along with corner velocity (Instantaneous Corner Velocity -iCV) below five thousand feet to sea level the F-15 had performance in turn radius with relationship to its competitors I found surprising!
iCV At Turn Turn
Sea Level Rate Radius
F-15A ________ 26.5° 1,250 feet
MiG.-29A/S ___ 24.0° 1,490 feet
Su-27 ________ 25.0° 1,150 feet
Su-33 ________ 24.0° 1,280 feet
Maximum “G-Loads” does not under all circumstances provide maximum turn rates!! Maximum G-loads at certain speeds can cause the aircraft to slide laterally, without providing the results desired. So rate of turn must be combined with entry speed for maximum effect.
> the f15a basic specification (i dont know if that was achieved) g limit
> is a save 7gs from 10% to 80% internal fuel, that turn rate is wrong
The specs are correct for the specific conditions for which they are takened from. There was no altitude or speed spec at that particular point but this particular website had a graph showing the turning performance between the F-14 and F-15 at 20,000 feet.
(I don’t know how to post a photo, so if you want a copy of the graph E-mail me at [email]-avon1944@hotmail.com[/email]
> the main goal was reach 7gs at lower speeds than the f4
The dynamic range of performance of the F-14 is far wider than the F-4. The F-14 can cruise at 220 mph and 20,000 feet to patrol for well over an hour (75 minutes), at a range of 300 miles (depending on the winds aloft), engage in a dogfight and, meet the tanker in the inner air defense zone to have enough fuel to have several shots at the deck safely.
My friend Art told me about this, the patrol speed being only 220 mph but, at that speed fuel consumption is “down to” 2,000 pounds of fuel per hour! That is the F-14A with the TF-30 engines.
> the max gs that the f15c can do (with some plastic deformations) is 12gs
Thanx for the information
> MFI
> I repeat my question, is 9G a constant limitation for all service
> Mach numbers?
No it is not, it varies with speed and altitude. The one thing that really changes is the amount of “side slip” and aircraft will experience at corner velocity or a maximum “G” sustained turn.
>> Adrian
>> This is why so many air forces outside Russia do not feel the cobra or
>> hook are valid aircombat maneuvers.
> Blackcat
> that it is performed at a decently high altitude so as to dive to gain
> energy after the Cobra so that your target is beautifully placed with a
> clear sky as background, won’t that be a Good shot?
The cobra is a good maneuver “IF” the fight is in a guns envirement -less than a mile separation. If you look at the dogfights between the US Navy F-14A’s against the four planes of the Libyian Air Force back in 1981 and again in 1989. The speeds of the fight were over five hundred miles per hour for the four combatants, to high to perform the hook or cobra.
DO THE MATH…. an F-14D is on the tail of the Su-27 at a speed of 450mph at a range of 1.5 miles (2.4 Km) and a speed of say 450mph (720Km/Hr). At 450mph that equals 660 ft-Sec. At that rate it would take the Tomcat over ten seconds to cover the mile and a half! If the F-14 fires a missile the Su-27 is in terrible circumstances. Very low on energy and any evasive actions will attract the missile even greater due to the engine heat.
Now “IF,” the enemy was following aircraft was 400 meters a quarter mile plus, then the distance would be covered in just 2.5 seconds approximately. The cobra and hook are solutions to guns being used in aerial combat.
In the conflicts between the US Navy’s F-14A’s and the Libyian Air Force, the closest kill was at the range 1.5 miles. Four Libyian aircraft being fired on from thirdteen miles down to one and one half miles.
I went back and checked the record of the F-14, F-15 and, F-16’s and since 06/20/73 found the following on confirmed kills only;
The F-14 serving with Iran and USN, the F-14 kills 2 gun kills out of a 129 kills total.
The Iraqi AF killed 1 Iranian F-14A with a gun out of 13 kills total.
The F-15 serving with IDF/AF, Saudi AF, and USAF has 4 gun kills out of the 104 kills total.
The F-16 serving with Greece, IDF/AF, Turkey and the, USAF have 7 gun kills out of 63 kills total.
The F-16 in conflicts between Greece and Turkey have lost two F-16’s but neither to guns!
The records also shows that with time the distance at which kills are made is increasing!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Russian Air Force Status
> Srbin
> I think Airforce and Army should be able to get the same amount of
> funding because Airforce development
You must remember the in the Soviet mentality, traditionally the army is the “main service” and the navy and air force are auxillary forces to insure the enemy navy or air forces do not take advantage of the Soviet Army. The thinking is changing and the Russian thinking is that they can not afford to plan for the “worst case scenario.” That they must scale down what they will be able to quickly respond to.
To the old Soviet Union, the worst case scenario was a conflict along its border with China!
Yes a conflict with NATO would be bad but there is no way that NATO troops would walk on Russian soil. China on the otherhand has a truely huge army, is capable of sustaining large losses and continue their advancement.
If China and Russia have “air parity” then the Russian Army will be on its own to protect the motherland.
So with a new philosophy Russia will have to sort out what it wants and what it can afford.
The Russian Navy would only be needed “if” there were problems somewhere outside the Eastern European/Asian land mass.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Attack on H-3 movie.. Anyone seen this?
> flex297
> Has anyone ever spread into an Iranian movie called *Attack on H-3?*
No, I would like to see it when it comes to Central California. I have a couple of engineers I worked with that are Iranian and I will ask them about films from their country. If the film has subtittles I will watch the whole movie, if not I will wait for just the flying scenes!
It would really be an “eye opener” to drive down a highway and have a high performance jet like the F-4 pass overhead by one hundred feet at five hundred miles per hour!
I live near Moffett Naval Air Station (when it was opened) and the end of the runway was perpendicular to the main highway in the area. I once saw a P-3 Orion come in low for a landing and a driver did not see the P-3 until it was almost over him. The driver swerved to avoid being hit by the plane, only to find the plane was above him!!
I was about 150 meters behind the driver and I just laughed!!!!
Adrian
Adrian_44Russian Air Force Status
Russia Loses its Military Aviation
By Russian Federation Air Force Commander-in-Chief, Colonel-general Vladimir Mikhailov
http://p214.ezboard.com/ffighterplanesfighters.showMessage?topicID=8699.topic
Russia Loses its Military Aviation
Much emphasis laid upon modernization of existing models of warplanes will make Russia fatally lag behind the world leading warplane producers and close access to the world market of warplanes
Russian Federation Air Force Commander-in-Chief, Colonel-general Vladimir Mikhailov said at a press conference the other day that only 15 per cent of the government defense order would fall at the Air Force in 2004. Before the Air Force and the Anti-missile Defense merged, each structure had had 15 per cent of the government defense order. However, the situation radically changed after the merger and became unfavorable for the Air Force, Vladimir Mikhailov says. As a result, even though the defense order has increased by almost 20 per cent this year, the Air Force still suffers from poor financing. This fact entails high depreciation of technique, poor training of pilots and increasing accident rate among warplanes. At a session of the Defense Ministry’s high ranking officials in November, Minister of Defense Sergey Ivanov strongly criticized the Air Force for poor correspondence to the requirements made to subdivisions on alert. In response to the criticism, Vladimir Mikhailov has recently said that alertness of the Air Force is maintained thanks to modernization of old military technique only under the present-day conditions of financial deficit. The commander-in-chief believes the solution is acceptable because, he says, the operating characteristics of many of the existing Russian warplane models are similar to fifth-generation technique. Experts say that this strategy will make Russia fatally lag behind other countries, the US in particular, and the country will lose access to the world market of warplanes.
Even though the defense order is bigger this year, finance appropriated for purchase of new technique for the Air Force will be enough mainly to acquire modernized models of planes, helicopters and anti-missile complexes. Vladimir Mikhailov says that for the time being modernization of Mi-24 helicopters is underway (eight modernized Mi-24 have been already adopted in the army aviation). Russia’s Air Force is expected to purchase 50 new Mi-28N shock helicopters by 2010. Test of the helicopter is to start in two months; Mi-28N is to become the basic military helicopter of the Russian army aviation. The commander-in-chief says that the anti-missile defense is working on increasing the range ability of the missile for the S-300 complex and on modernization of the S-400 complex. This year, the anti-missile defense will adopt Panzir (Shell), the new anti-missile system.
The Air Force plans to acquire modernized planes only. New projects are just being developed currently, with the exception of the Su-34 new military bomber that is to be adopted by the Air Force this year. Vladimir Mikhailov says that this renovation of outdated technique is justified under conditions of restricted financing as it saves budgetary spending. The modernization will be first of all applied to Su-24 bombers, Su-25 attack planes, MiG-29 and MiG-31 pursuit planes. Strategic missile carriers Tu-94S and Tu-160 will undergo deep modernization; in addition to new battle control equipment, the planes will be equipped with long-range cruise missiles with non-nuclear warhead. Vladimir Mikhailov says that Tu-160 strategic bomber will recommence flights on January> Latest News
How Much Money Do Candidates for Presidency Have?
Putin leads Russia’s Top Ten
Russian Army: reform has finished, reforming has started
Immigrants in Russia
Russians are entitled to know…..what they eat
16 after the flights were banned after an accident in September.
Besides, this year the Air Force is to equip one regiment with modernized Su-27 warplanes (soon, 20 planes of the type will be sent to an enterprise in Komsomolsk-on-Amur for modernization). Vladimir Mikhailov says that modernized Sy-27SM planes belong to the 4+ generation technique. The modernized pursuit planes will effectively attack targets in the air and on land. The Air Force commander-in-chief says that these planes differ from fifth-generation pursuit planes with their relatively high visibility and insufficient technical equipment. However, Vladimir Mikhailov says that modernized Su-27 will not influence the program for construction of fifth-generation pursuit planes.
Experts say that there is little chance that Russia will have fifth-generation pursuit planes of its own. Deputy Director of the analytical department of the Political and Military Analysis Institute Alexander Khramchikhin told RBC daily that Russia actually has money; large sums of money are constantly accumulated in the national currency reserves and get depreciated through dollar collapse. He adds that development and construction of a fifth-generation fighter demands about $20 billion dollars. It is hardly likely that the government will appropriate financing of this scale. “The problem is that economic and military authorities in this country live in parallel spaces and have no common approach to problems,” Alexander Khramchikhin says.
What is more, experts say that Russia”s Air Force will have fifth-generation pursuit planes only in case if these machines will have high export potential. But experts predict that in the nearest future Russia will experience problems with entering the world market of combat planes. As a result, other countries, America first of all will flood the market with their old but still competitive pursuit planes at knock-down prices. This is the situation we witness in the civil aviation today. Mr.Khramchikhin says that Russia’s Air Force is 10-15 years behind the US now, and the situation is hardly likely to change at all. New pursuit planes F-22 already appear in the US Army and F-35 pursuit planes are to be adopted soon. But Russia’s fifth-generation pursuit planes are just under development now. In the nearest future, the US will flood the market with toutdated but still competitive pursuit planes at dumping prices. This in its turn will deprive Russia of access to the world market of warplanes.
Today all of Russia’s projects of new air technique that might be in demand on the world market are being under development. In particular, Czechia, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, India and China evince much interest in a unique Russian-Ukrainian joint project for construction of An-70 troop carrier. But the Russian share in the project is small – 20 million while Ukraine invested 166 million rubles in the project. Nevertheless, finance meant for launching of the project has been included into Russia’s defense order for this year. But the commander-in-chief still thinks the project of the plane is still unfinished. Vladimir Mikhailov says that the plane cannot be put into production because of its imperfect engine D-27 that is “unsafe, short-life and very expensive.” Experts think it is impossible to get the engine into shape. At the same time, producers stick to a different opinion. Tests of An-70 are supposed to be finished in February in the city of Yakutsk.4:49 PM 10/2/2004
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15,16 limitations in comp. with MiG’s
> MFI
> I am interesting have the F-15,16 such limitation caused by strength of airframe.
The airframes are rated for nine G’s. How many more “G’s” the frame will take before the skin or frame will be damaged by the deformity, I have no idea.
> I know that for Su-27 the value of 25 deg per sec. is wrong.
> >F-15A ________ 26.5° 1,250 feet>
> Is it also from Av.Week?
NO, if you check these figures with the other aircraft being compared, you will find them in-line with the other aircraft. They come from the Air Combat Information Group (ACIG).
This is the website of which I got my figures from. These figures are takened from similar conditions/parameters;
http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=527
> Maximum value of CAS in the beginning of Cobra maneuver always
> demonstrates near 450 km/hour = 450/1.852= 240 mph. The aircraft
> will experience only 4-5G’s!
This is why so many air forces outside Russia do not feel the cobra or hook are valid aircombat maneuvers. You are limited in your entry speed and once you perform it your aircraft has no energy, which makes you a real target!
At 450mph (724KmH).
> > The April 01, 1974 issue of Aviation Week. >
> In 1974 F-15C and especially E dos not exists yet. And may be exists
> more modern sources of information concern Eagles?
The designers realized the potential for the “E” long before the Air Force did. The designers/engineers first realized it before the first flight of the F-15A! While the USAF was running around saying, “not a pound for air to ground.” The designers knew about the potential and were looking at expanding the capability and what was envolved to convert an F-15B (trainer) into the F-15E deep penetrating aircraft! (The retirement of the F-111 and A-6 leaves the F-15E as the longest range tactical aircraft.)
It took several years to change the “religeous” views the USAF had about the F-15!
> aerospacetech
> 7.33g at 80% internal fuel was the design requirement for the FX program,
> according to the official concept development paper.
This is reasonable although in most cases the fuel level will be lower and the number of “G’s” the airframe can handle is greater.
> seahawk
try a 9G turn with any SU-27 derivate and 80% internal fuel load.
> aerospacetech
> Not a fair comparison; the Su-27 carries a load more internal fuel.
The F-14A Tomcat carries more fuel than the F-15A Eagle also but, it never stopped any comparisions! An airplane is what it is complete with its strengths and faults. If it has shortcommings, acknowledge them and keep going…. don’t cry unfair!
Their missions while they seem similar do have their differences. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses. The advantage of the Tomcat and Eagle was that they were opporational more than a dozen years before the Su-27. Yes, the Flanker has performance advantages over its American counter-parts, the Tomcat was almost half way through its service life. So, the Su-27 was top dog on the block for a while and now the fifth generation aircraft are becomming operational and the new top dogs are the JAS-39C and the Rafale and soon to be the F-22, life goes on.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15,16 limitations in comp. with MiG’s
> aerospacetech
> F-15 was designed for 7.33Gs but I thought the G limit was increased later on.
Actually it was originally designed for 9.0 G’s but when the first modifications were made (detune of the engines, etc.), the G-limit was reduced to 7.33G’s for normal peace time operation, . The F-15E had many structural members re-designed which added over 3,300 pounds to the empty weight. The re-design allowed the F-15E to pull a positive nine “G’s” with a full bomb load.
> MFI
> is it overload value constant for all M numbers?
No….. it varies because air pressure varies at different altitudes.
As for “Max Q” (maximum dynamic stress) refers to all the stresses generated by the envirement, vibration from the engines, stresses on on control surfaces, etc.. At lower altitudes the air is thicker and speeds tend to be lower. At higher altitudes the air is thinner, stresses due to the envirement are less and the speeds are higher. So, if you draw a graph for maximum stresses at low altitudes and another at high altitudes. The two graph lines intersect at Mach 1.1 and 17,000 feet.
> The 9G limitation on trans-sonic regime is cause in higher weight
> of airframe.
Well let us say it causes more stress on the frame of the aircraft. The usage of new lightweight materials keeps the weight down.
> Trans-sonic regime is not so critical for air-to-air combat capability.
Actually it is…. it is an area of aerial combat in which few aircraft can effectively operate in. Until recently, the F-14, F-15 and, Su-27 were the only aircraft that could effectively operate in this region. I do not know what the corner velocity of the Su-27 is at 20,000 or 30,000 feet altitude but, I do know the F-14 has a corner velocity (CV) of Mach 1.2 at 20,000 feet and the F-15 has a CV of Mach 0.9 to 1.1 at 30,000 feet.
CV At Sea Level
F-15A ________ 340 kts
MiG.-29A/S ___ 370 kts
Su-27A _______ 295 kts
Su-33 ________ 320 kts
iCV At Turn Turn
Sea Level Rate Radius
F-15A ________ 26.5° 1,250 feet
MiG.-29A/S ___ 24.0° 1,490 feet
Su-27 ________ 25.0° 1,150 feet
Su-33 ________ 24.0° 1,280 feet
Instantaneous Corner Velocity -iCV
>> Adrian
>> Su-27 ____ 13.0 G’s ‘
> Su-27 has only classical 8-9G limit.
It has a normal limit of nine “G’s” but, when doing the cobra or the hook, if the entry speed is up near 450 mph, the aircraft will experience 13G’s! This is also why the Su-27 can not perform the cobra or hook above 450 mph, the limit would be exceeded.
> Were information about F-15C,E was obtained for?
The April 01, 1974 issue of Aviation Week. They did a three part special on the F-15A. The other two issues which had extended articles appearred on March 25, 1974 and April 08, 1974. The information given out is just one reason many people call Aviation Week, “Aviation Leak!”
“Av Leak” also did an extensive article on the F-14 and one of early Mediteranean Sea Cruises aboard the USS America in the November 29, 1976 issue.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Israelis beat American pilots 220 out of 240 engagements
> Multirole
> Israelis beat American pilots 220 out of 240 engagements in new wargame
This exercise is many years old! It was over eighteen months after the exercise before the information was releast to a newspaper in Haifa, Israel. Needless to say the message made its way around the world. Less than thirty-six hours after the information hit the USA, Congress voted on funds for the F-22 program -fools!
Notice….. no mention is made of ROE’s and, what a difference they make.
Many of these programs go on fairly constantly. My friend Art (one of the early F-14A pilots who did not transition from the F-4 Phantom) participated in one of these exercises.
It was against the Egyptian Air Force and both sides were supposed to limited to five “G” maneuvers. The CAG told the Tomcat pilots that there would be “NO” tanker support on this exercise!! Translation -do not use your afterburners or, you would might not be able to make it back to the carrier!
The MiG.-21’s got all sorts of good gun camera footage! Then the Tomcats returned to the carrier participating as ordered.
There was another encounter in which the F-14’s were escorting some A-7 Corsair 2’s to a bombing range in the Sinai Desert. The F-14’s were allowed to fire in BVR and they blew big holes in the F-15 formations and blew through to the target. Then fought their way back out to the carrier.
You don’t hear about those exercises unless there is “political currency” to be had.
> This points to two divergent concepts for future arial warfare. Americans
> favor BVR, Israelis prefer dogfights
> You can claim the superiority of BVR over close range in theory, but the
> Israelis have drawn an opposite conclusion based on their experience
The only reason the Israelis prefer WVR is because there are so many different types of aircraft in the airspace over and around their nation. To fire at an unknown blip can cause a killing of an airliner that did not file a proper flight plan, etc.!
Just after PGW#1 and before the Blackhawk helos were shot down, AWACS detected a bogey and vectored two F-14D’s to intercept. AWACS cleared the Tomcat to fire but, the lead pilot declined and decided to get a visual ID on the target. Several minutes later the TCS showed the bandit was a DC-9 which had not filed a proper flight plan!
> the Israelis lack “total package experience” as they were the pioneers
> of AWAC operations
No…. actually that was done by the US Navy earns that credit with the E-2 Hawkeye of which Israel has purchased some. Remember the first efforts occurred in Viet Nam using the EC-121 call sign “Red Crown.” Red Crown did help prevent air ambushes provided NVNAF flew at higher altitudes, if the NVNAF flew at low altitudes Red Crown was not much help until they gained altitude.
> There are things Israeli AWACs can do a USAF E-3 can’t.
Oh really….. at the time these exerciseS were done, the E-2C was Israel’s only AWACS was from the US Navy!
> The problem with relying on BVR is all air to air missiles can be fooled
> or outmanuevered at extreme range.
You can fire in the BVR mode without being near extreme range. You can fire the AIM-7 or AIM-120 missile at ranges of fifthteen to twenty miles. A fair distance from the maximum range. You would like to fire the missile at a long range and have it impact with the target before the rocket motor burns out, this will insure maximum terminal velocity.
Some missiles have a high impulse rocket motor and provides a lot of energy in a few seconds and most of the flight is done on inertia. The newer missiles have a longer burning rocket motors so they are still burning when the target is
impacted. This provides more energy to maneuver in the terminal phase of the flight.
> GoldenDragon
> Holy cowpies, everyone and his brother is beating up on the USAF/USN!
Especially when it is time for budget appropriations! Scores of these exercises suddenly become public! It is almost like one piece of information is releast and then the reporters do a little investigation and find many other examples of international exercises where US aircraft do not do well.
> Shadow1
> I can safely say that Israeli crews are better trained than American fighter
> pilots and are allowed to display agressive tactics on the battlefield which
> is what makes them so effective.
The Israelis are good but, not knowing the ROE, it would be a stretch to say the Americans are inferior.
Whenever the IAF experiences something new, their number one consultant is the USAF! The same folks of which they pattern their training program on and get most of their weapons from. The Israeli pilots do get about one more flying hour per week than the Americans but, that is about it.
> I do believe that Israeli pilots are far less restricted in their ROEs which
> allows them to take the initiative much sooner which is why they posted such
> results against USN and UASF crews.
That is my point in asking what are the ROE’s! Some exercises each side has different ROE’s in order to make the contest more fair. Such as when Tomcat go up against Super Etendard of Argentina, different ROE’s are required or there is no fight, just an incident where the Argentines lost their aircraft.
> Israel and Syria continually exchange blows on a regular basis with several
> engagement having taken place in the last couple of years.
Just like the Americans the Israelis have shot down MiG.-29’s without much difficulty. American aircraft lose these exercises but continuously do well in air combat when the shooting starts.
> Arshad
> in exercises americans most of the time fly with equipement which is below
> that of the opponents equipment
So true, for when the US air forces face the Israelis they do not have the HMDS like the Israelis. They have to visually ID a target before they can fire a missile. Without HMDS the American forces are at a real disadvantage.
> bring it on
> i can recall this coorectly those claims were made by an isreili HMCS
> developer/manufacterer interestingly just before the US was wanting
> tendors for them.
There appears to be all sorts of alterior motives!
> Sens
> Going into a classical dogfight ashures to be killed by a superior AAM.
So true, the Israeli are able to use the Python 4/HMDS versus the Sidewinder 9L.
> Sauron
> So the U.S. only sells dumbed down fighters to foreign customers, yet
> looses each and every war game it participates in
The USA sells aircraft that does not have some equipment the US forces usually
use. Such as the newest data links, etc.. Usually the foreign customer then provides their own choice of equipment… if they feel the equipment is needed.
> No name, no date, no verification, no specifics on rules of engagement.
> It all adds up to just another B.S.story.
I remember when the information on when it was releast and about two weeks later Aviation Week speculated about the authenticity on the timming of the news release.
> kfadrat
> you mean that is a load of BS, actually being repeated for the one thousand
> and one time in order to insure the myth
There is reality and bias behind the statements. Once you discover the ROE’s or other biases you can then determine the truth.
The Janes article about Fighter Tactics by Bill Sweet makes some gross exaggerations that in theory are correct but, only in theory. -In theory a B-52 could shoot down a Tomcat if the Tomcat approaches to close from behind! Any Tomcat that gets that close to the back of a B-52 or Tu-95 deserves to be shot down!!
The F-22 has the weapons and equipment to avoid getting into a gun fight with a third or fourth generation fighter. The author cried wolf and some people listened!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15,16 limitations in comp. with MiG’s
> MFI
> So, who know, have the Eagle and Falcon such limit in max.
> overload possible?
The USAF aircraft are designed for sustained G-loads. The G-loads are;
F-15C ____ 7.33 G’s
F-15E ____ 9.0 G’s (that is with a full bomb load! What speed, altitude, etc. ?
F-16C ____ 9.0 G’s
I don’t know what the maximum G-load for the F-22 is but;
“Max Q” is Mach 1.1 at 17,000 at 7G’s
Su-27 ____ 13.0 G’s (this is the reason the max. speed to enter the cobra is 450mph)
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: SU30MKI v/s SU-35
> Blueshark
> The Su-35 is definitely better than the Su-30MKI
I disagree! Anyone who knows Russian/Soviet aviation products knows the real acchilles heel of their aircraft is their avionics. The MKI cures that by using the most advance Indian and some Israeli avionics/electronics!
> The Su-30MKI Bars radar is bulky and heavy and has poor field of scan.
I think you are referring to the Su-30M, the simple export version.
> crobato
> I’m sure many others would share my feeling, like the engineers at Lockheed
> Martin designing the F-22.
Just as the survay back in the late 1970’s showed what the Soviet Union would be capable of in 1990 to 2000, the same accountability is being done to stay up on what the Russians are doing and what they would like to do next but need money or permission before starting.
> No. Weight and aerodynamics isn’t a factor and has nothing to do with it.
> You can make a barndoor agile with TVC. It is NOT necessary to have
> canards with TVC.
No but in order to make the design the most effective the design must be integrated. A complement of each other not one in expense of the other.
So yes you can have canards, TVC or, both but they must work together.
The F-22 has TVC but no canards and the EF-2000 and Rafale has canards and no TVC.
> Harry
> I’m don’t think that the Russian HUDs on offer with the Su-35
Yes, one is offerred but, few customers seemed to be impressed with it!
> The MKI employs RAM
The usage of RAM placed upon a design originally not for stealth helps a little but it is not as affective as a design originally done to incorporate RAM and that RAM is just one element in the overall design.
> Indian1973
> can you lessen the usage of TVC if you have canards – getting
> things done with control surfaces than with vectored thrust?
> also is TVC better/equal to TVC+canards at slow speeds on the
> same airframe?
The usage of canards and TVC can lessen the load on certain structural members if designed that way. It really depends on what the designers are trying to do and how they are doing it. Canards can help with stability at slow speed and limiting the AOA. Or, help with pitch stability just above Mach 1.05 or so without loading the airframe with movement of the TVC.
> Sauron
> the question is not will Israel be able to afford the F-22,
> it’s will the US be able to afford to give it to them?
Israel will be the first organization other than the USAF to have F-22’s. The IDF/AF will most likely be the first to use the F-22 in combat! For that reason, foreign military aid assistance will be sufficient to afford Israel what it needs.
> Camaro
> we will never see this in “Top Gun 2”
Awh shucks. I would like to see “Top Gun 2 -Maveric Gets a Cross Service Transfer!” There could be some real great flying seens.
Adrian
Adrian_44Radars!
> donis
> I’ve been a little curious as whenever there’s an argument about US vs
> Russian fighters, people always claim the US is better in BVR
The Russians and Americans have different views on aerial combat to start with. The resources each country has is also very different.
In the past and it looks like in the foreseeable future the friends of Russia will have to defend their airspace. The friends of the American aircraft tend to be the countries who export the fight to their neighbors.
This is reflected in the overall design. The MiG. series tend to be short range and have GCI to help them. American aircraft all have had air to air refueling since the late 1950’s. Prior to AWACS American aircraft went into battle without any “GCI type” support.
So the fact that American aircraft have AWACS is not an advantage, it is a leveling of the field against GCI.
Back to the original question, if you look at Russian radars they tend to have a lot of transmitting power but their detection range nor their ability to avoid being jammedis any better than the American radars.
American radars have access to micro-circuitry Russian designers only dream about. The transmitting power is less but their ability to detect the return signal out of background noise is far greater. Their ability to read a signal from a jamming background is good. The ability to maintain radar lock-on tends to be better with American radars. Russian radars tend to scan larger areas of the sky than the American radars. American airborne radars scan a smaller area/volumn but, can be directed by the pilot more easily.
> how do people suddenly shove US planes into the better at BVR category
> and not Russian planes.. BVR is a reflection of Radar capability,
> nothing much more.
When country after country where money is not an issue, tend to choose American aircraft but, Russian artillery.
> Harry
> American radars seem to have dropped emphasis on range in favour of
> operational modes.
Yes, this provides flexibility. When you look at the range of the MiG.-29’s radar and capabilities versus the radars features of the F-16 or the F/A-18, the MiG.-29’s in operation is not as good. Yes the clock speed of the processor is higher than its American counter-parts but, the ability to lock-on automatically onto several targets, pick out the most threatening and, inform the pilot is cruxial in a multi-bogey envirement.
The Luftwaffe pilots of the 73rd Fighter Squadron of the 73rd Fighter Wing have stated that what the specification sheet passed out at airshows where clients are looking to purchase aircraft differs greatly from the actual performance.
> djcross
> US airplanes also operate in conjunction with E-3 and E-2C cues
> these give the US airplanes a first look, first shot, first kill
> capability.
As I said earlier, AWACS only leveled the combat arena because the bad guys have GCI while the fight is over their territory.
Adrian
Sign In
