dark light

dynamo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 250 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395555
    dynamo
    Participant

    😀 If you want to play that uncalled for game – we both know which aircraft will end up built in larger numbers. (Hint: The one that hasn’t been canceled!) 😀

    -at this moment there is no firm order for the PAK-FA. the russians are in the same point the US was in 1991 when the YF 22 was declared the winner of the ATF competitions;

    -2 years from now F 22 will still be in production to fulfill the 187 ordered so far; are you so sure that if the PAK-FA will prove more dangerous that thought, the production can’t be continued?

    I think that US is more worried about the Chinese JXX than the Russian PAK-FA. Whith a GNP 4 times the Russian one, who is going to afford more 5th gen fighters?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395560
    dynamo
    Participant

    If you want to put the definitions that way, that’s fine by me.

    That’s the general accepted definitions of RWR and ESM.

    It’s an active, counter-stealth system that doesn’t rely on the enemy emitting anything.

    You may believe what you want.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395601
    dynamo
    Participant

    The Raptors side bays have rear firing missiles in them as well. They’re called AIM-9X.

    Not in this moment. AIM 9X will be integrated only in 2015.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395604
    dynamo
    Participant

    What if the enemy is in LPI mode or not emitting?

    The PAK-FA and Su-35S may well have L-band radars. This trend might spread.

    The famous L band ellements tested on are not radars.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395609
    dynamo
    Participant

    You are assuming the enemy stealth fighter is emitting anything. What if it’s not?! Yes, it’s a fancy RWR/fire-control unit. There’s no harm in calling it that.

    An RWR will give you the direction of the signal. An ESM (like the ALR 94 of the F 22, the ASQ 239of the F 35, Spectra of the Rafale, the “Falcon Edge” of the F 16 blk. 60, the ALQ 218 of the EF 18) will give you the geolocation, including the distance (and speed for airborne radars) of the emmiter. And yes, if the enemy fighter (stealth of not) won’t emmit, the RWR/ESM/ wouldn’t work.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395621
    dynamo
    Participant

    So the ALR 94 system is like a passive sensor with multiple antennas that detects the incoming signals of hostile fighter and rely on its computing power to triangulate the relative position and information of the hostile fighter.

    It’s not triangulation (you ‘ll need more space between the two receivers); from what it’s said the ALR will analyze ~ 30 paramaters of the incomming signal, vs. ~ 4 partamaters that an RWR does.

    And then this information is feeded to the radar control computer to narrow the beam to those suspicious point where the signals come from, minimizing the radar emission to protect the F-22 from passive sensor?

    Sort of. Again, within AMRAAM range, no need to use the radar.

    How will this system be affected by different wavelengths that the hostile fighter used?
    Thanks you.

    Not much. A fighter doesn’t have S band or L band radars.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395653
    dynamo
    Participant

    The ALR-94 is a nice piece of equipment, but here’s several things to think about:

    It’s basically a RWR that can guide the APG-77 in LPI to guide an AMRAAM

    … this means that the APG-77 is going to emit, and LPI or not, this is an emission, and you can bet your left nut that the PAK-FA is going to have a hell of an RWR system installed to counter other LPI radars.

    If fact, ALR 94 is considered the most sophisticated equipment of the Raptor, even more than the APG 77. Certainly, more expensive. If an ennemy fighter does emmit, the ALR 94 will pick at impresive distance (Sweeteman said ~ 450 km in the case of a fighter radar). It will geolocate the target, not only finding the direction as a “normal” RWR, but also the distance and speed. Closer (that means within the AMRAAM range), ALR 94 could cue the AMRAAM without using the APG 77.

    Hardly “basicallly a RWR”…

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395659
    dynamo
    Participant

    Will they do a “visual” RCS mapping of it, and of the F-22, like they did with the F-35?

    Yes they will, but it will be a 2D one…:D

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2395663
    dynamo
    Participant

    No, the F-22A aren’t developet for high Mach numbers, LM put the effort and money in all other capability..
    In fact the high power engines in F-22 are somewhat poor on fuel economy, particulary in AB.

    Any “high power” engine is “poor on fuel economy”, “particulary in AB”…

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2396795
    dynamo
    Participant

    They installed the DAS right under the F-35 nose, it will have basically the same impact on stealth as this ball. You really think angling the thing with a single triangle shape has that much of an impact on RCS? :p

    DAS is not the F 35’s IRST. EOTS is. DAS is something different.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2396798
    dynamo
    Participant

    I’ve taken your advice and did some reading and this is what I came up with: The Russians built an one-of-a-kind MiG-21 technology demonstrator that has a RCS of 0.25 sq m.

    The original article was published in Nov. 2003. Apparently it has been taken off online
    http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/4-2003/interview/?sess_=4e4563b23abbc3a7be9f31cc67ef52e8

    .25 sq.m is not stealth

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2396801
    dynamo
    Participant

    Don’t deceive yourself. US GDP might be much larger than Russian but LM or NG would both kill for half of the political support Sukhoi enjoys from Russian govt nowadays.

    The main questions were not aimed at inability of LM to design something they want to but at requirements which were set in a wrong way.

    For instance, F-35 does not seem to be able to supercruise. I would not think for a second that LM wanted a supercruiser but they have screwed it up. Still, the overall outcome is a non-supercruising aircraft. For USAF might be of secondary importance since they have Raptors to depend on, but for European users this might be a great disappointment.

    That’s not the point; it’s about atitude: if anybody dare to question the unbelievable T 50 it’s blasfemy…

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2396805
    dynamo
    Participant

    If you bothered reading real- unbiased articles by the Gov it’s self, you’d notice the stealth the U.S. had wouldn’t/hasn’t given an advantage over Russia in a war, the U2 was shot down, the SR-71 was intercepted by MiG-31’s 169 times in the 80’s, the last straw was Su-27’s detecting (the SR-71) and coming for an interception in 89 over Finland, the B-2 needs to be escorted by no less than 50 fighters, to the target, going against Rus tech I can assure you, the U.S. famous “STEALTH” will not work.

    Then, why the f**k ther Russians spent so much efforts to replicate it?

    in reply to: the F-35, does it make any sense? #2398090
    dynamo
    Participant

    Counter measures and ECM have developed, as well. Today you need more sophistication to achieve the same Pk as once with AIM-120B against vanilla MiG-29s back in 90s. As the measures and countermeasures evolve, I’d say that the Pk stays more or less the same (pretty low), with minor fluctuations..

    The only thing that could shift the Pk significantly would be some kind of a major breakthrough. VLO might be one of them – but it would most likely reduce the Pk even further rather than improve it. If stealth works as advertised, then active guided AAMs are soon a dead end and IR guidance becomes, again, the biggest guy on the block.

    I remember an article on AvLeak were the main advantage of the “D” was not the new seeker, even if it’s the first new one (the B/C were just improvement of the initial sseker), but the new 2-way datalink and the GPS-aided INS. The article said that thanks to these two features, the “D” will be guided closer to the target, and turned active in the last moment, not at ~ 15 km as in the case of today AAMs. In this way, the time to react will be too short, the VLO will be a non-issue (at 2-3 km even a F 22 frontal is “seen” by an AMRAAM/R 77) and at such a short distance, a jammer wouldn’t help too much the defender; it will just provide more accurate targeting cues to a missile with home-on -jam capability (such as the AMRAAM).
    ________
    Marriage Advice Forums

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2398108
    dynamo
    Participant

    Sukhoi employs 28,000 engineers. UAC employs 120,000+ people in total. You real think huge glaring things like this escaped the attention of all of them?

    My friend, Lockheedmartin employs 140,000 highly skilled scientists, engineers and workers, and NorthropGrumman 120,000 of them. Not to mention that thier resources dwarfs the entire russian aerospace industry. Yet, those ‘little” details did not stop posters on this forum (and others) to question the F 22 and F 35. Some of the doubts were right (many fixsed by these corporation), others were not.

    So, if a poster has some doubts about a prototype, of a new design, in a a totally new field for the Russians (stealth), that just made 40 min first flight, try to answer him with facts; maybe he just doesn’t share your excitement, that’s all.

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 250 total)