I think you are missing the point. People don’t want the particular individuals to pay. Putin will suffice!

Yeah and what a can of worms that would open. See the whole Saudi 9/11 debacle and why civil prosecutions got vetoed. What kind of law suits would the US be open for given Iraq?

This is called collateral damage, plain and simple and it’s the reason military and civilian assets should not occupy the same space.

Besides that, there’s exactly zero chance of making anyone pay.

What?. This makes it acceptable to fire on an unidentified air target at civil aircraft cruising altitude does it?. Rules of Engagement for this kind of system exist, in professional formations, for a reason. If the rebels were unaware of, or incapable of following, some fairly basic rules they should never have been given access to the weapons.

So what happened with Iran Air 655… or the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan? It’s a war, tensions are high, unidentified aircraft dumb enough not to register their flight path are liable to being shot down.

yes, for manoeuvers and exercises, days with nice weather. Apart from that… No or so Ammos, no Rover, datafusion bugged etc. etc. Ultimately yes it will be operational. Today? Only for advertisement.

Wasn’t too bugged to hammer other aircraft in exercises.

That was an early plan, plans change. Read any of the latest contracts for the radar 2 assessment. Btw, radar 2 is not a different radar, it is what the program evaluation for integrating the AESA into the U.K. Typhoon fleet is called. Look up the contracts.

Radar 1 and 1+ incorporates research from Selex UK only. Radar 2 is Selex UK plus QinetiQ. See info already posted instead of replying.

No, I didn’t, last time I’ve quoted you was on 27th september 20:45, you quoted/mentioned me 3 times since then but anyway this is a forum..

Yeah right.. See my school child analogy who thinks 5 cannot be subtracted from 2 because of his ignorance. Like I’ve said, you cannot “ram” supersonic air onto compressor face and expect a performance improvement. Unless you have some very exotic engine design, only result you will get is a compressor stall.

Really? Show me the ramp please? Google images are full of pictures showing Typhoon’s inlet in detail. I have full confidence in you that you will try the pass the splitter plate as a shockwave ramp, but anyway no harm in asking…

Blah blah blah blah. So you claim it has zero or even negative wavedrag? Zero or negative change in supersonic drag despite the fact it isn’t even possbile on a supercritical airfoil, and the fact Typhoon doesn’t even use a supercritical airfoil?

Ignorance level 101.

You know, before making this claim, you could have easily verified it by making some comparisons on dry and wet parts of dynamic thrust graphs by simply chosing same flight conditions;
S/L M0,0: DRY 4959kgf WET 8000kgf, 61% increase.
1km M1,2: DRY 5250kgf WET 11450kgf, 118% increase.
5km M1,6: DRY 4450kgf WET 10500kgf 135% increase.
13km M2,0: DRY 2100kgf WET 5900kgf 180% increase.

On these 4 data points alone, difference between increases of “percentage augmentation over dry thrust” is like 3 times. Funny thing is, you are so confident of your own BS that you even emphasize it by saying “we can make a very good estimate”. No, you cannot even make a correlation between them, let alone base ANY estimate on it.

Well, MiG-25 can go above M2,7+ with 2000kg bomb load, no aircraft -excluding MiG-31 and Tu-160- cannot even go M2,0 with that payload, so according to your logic, MiG-25 has greater climb rates than everything else on this world. Reality is, it has about the 1/3rd of climb rate of MiG-29, despite the top speed.

What is hardly suprising is, you’ve just humiliated yourself, again… For your own sake, let go of your thickheadness and for once understand if underlying reasons are unrelated, one good performance value in certain aspect at a certain point in the envelope does not equate to good performance values on all aspects throughout the envelope.

I knew you would say that, given your ignorance level is of the roof. Climb rate is not a physical representation of climb, it means ability of the aircraft to gain energy at 1G flight equal to the amount it gains of potential energy climbing by that amount.

So when at M0,9 306m/s, MiG-29 would have climb rate of 345m/s, this means it could make a climb at 90 degrees, and still have 345-306 = 39m/s additional climb rate, which can be used for acceleration on a vertical climb. You can calculate the acceleration from dKE=dPE -> m*v*a = m*g*dH your dH is your climb rate, V is the airspeed in m/s, so MiG-29 will have 1,25 m/s2 acceleration on 90 degree vertical climb at M0,9.

You will see similar things for all aircraft if you knew how to look at it:

F-16’s flight manual gives climb rates as FPS = feet per second.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248601[/ATTACH]

0 FPS is your sustained turn rate, 400-600-800-1000fps lines are the the points where F-16 has positive climb rate. 1000 feet/s = 305 m/s climb rate. F-16 blk50@ ~25% fuel achieves 305 m/s at M0,72 = 245 m/s. But this is impossible as well, right? Wrong. Also if you follow the FPS lines you will also see all climb rates max out at around M0,9, kind of supporting my claim of M0,85-M0,9 is max climb rate is achieved at lower altitudes for all modern combat aircraft.

You keep trying to insult me about mathematics and aerodynamics aspects of the topic, yet once again, only thing you’ve proven is you yourself is the one with no understanding about the subject..

JUST STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF!!!! Read what YOU are posting.

TITLE: Thrust Vectoring for Advanced Fighter Aircraft – High Angle of Attack Intake Investigations

QUOTE: During all the testing the intake lip position has been held fixed at its most open position (which has been determined for During the first test runs data points from former windtunnel the highest angles of attack considered sofar).

So you infer from this, Typhoon has fixed supersonic inlet ramps? Typhoon doesn’t even have a ramp. It has a splitter plate, a pitot inlet and a variable inlet lip for high AOA and NOT for supersonic flight. If all else were designed just right, those lips would still need to rotate/curve invards to “catch” the shocks originating from splitter plate as increasing speeds, like one on MiG-31, or something like inverted version of external compression ramp of F-15, but mk1 inspection of inlet reveal it isn’t shaped for that, and mechanical travel of the lip reveal it only comes to level, not curve invards. Both these points support each other.

In this form, those lips work in exact same fashion on MiG-29K; they allow more air in a less distorted form into the inlet at high AOA. At supersonic they all stay in a neutral position, and ramps (which Typhoon lacks) optimize shock angles.

I am repeating this too: You are posting some independent research about subsonic high AOA performance, that doesn’t even use factual data for Typhoon but merely uses a model resembling it in shape. Then you are trying to pass it proof of Typhoon’s high performance at supersonic 1G performance (which would happen at near 0 AOA). Either you are way too idiot to just to notice you are talking about mutually exclusive flight regimes (despite me repeatedly warning you of this), or you are deliberately misguiding everyone here in the hopes of no one would notice that and you would come on top in an argument. I’ve made similar arguments with many people, some provided convincing proofs trashing my claims, some simply accepted my version of the story and some were even more more biased, and narrow-minded then you do, but none resorted to trickery like this.

DRY thrust has nothing to do with WET thrust. You are comparing the dry thrust of an engine designed for supercruise, to an engine that is NOT designed for supercruise, at supersonic speeds.

Pegasus engine has more dry thrust than EJ-200’s wet thrust, and harrier has half the weight, less then half the wing area of Typhoon. Yet Typhoon can supercruise, can go M2.0+ on wet thrust, but Harrier, despite the great engine power, cannot even go supersonic, because pegasus isn’t designed to deliver thrust at supersonic speeds. You can’t draw the conclusion Harrier is a flying brick with no energy-maneuverability just because its way slower than typhoon, in fact its overall dogfighting performance was superior againist Mirage-5s and Mirage IIIs.

Perhaps you should read more and not write anything at all.

Well what are you doing now? Simple, stop writing and I’ll stop replying.

Never said you could. The air is slowed down by an oblique shock on the inlet ramp, followed by a normal shock. At low supersonic speeds, the total pressure loss will be equivalent to a variable geometry intake.

JFC! I’ve posted this link like 1 million times now! All you have to do is read it.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADP011111

No, but it’s faster than the MiG-29 in supercruise, speed at sea level and Vmax. So it seems T-D is superior across the entire envelope.

See above. T-D is superior across the entire envelope for the Typhoon. Supercruise, SL Vmax, high altitude Vmax.

The difference is that the Typhoon seems to be faster at SL (M1.25), high altitude (M2.35) and supercruise (M1.5) given the figures available.

You clearly stated climb rate not SEP. So stop trying to be clever because you’re failing miserably. What I said remains correct for the words used.

…. all irrelevant.

Can’t you read?

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADP011111

At supersonic flight Mach numbers a ramp which is separated from the fuselage by a diverter produces an oblique shock in order to decelerate the flow.

Yes, it is for the Typhoon, section 3 is describing the study aircraft.

Dry thrust has everything to do with wet thrust! Wet thrust is simply dry thrust plus fuel chucked in before the nozzle. But this is irrelevant, Typhoon has higher supercruise, SL Vmax and high altitude Vmax.

Pegasus uses an extremely high BPR, EJ200 does not, Pegasus also lacks a con-di nozzle.. Use some common sense.

Perhaps the Mirage pilots were also sh!t. It’s debatable.

Or perhaps you should just read the post you’re replying to.

The point was that the source is rather old, and plans change…. unless you have a newer source it seems highly doubtful that two AESA radars will be developed almost at the same time for such a struggling program… Read what you linked to above, there are plenty of things to address in the Typhoon, but very little money available.

Well I have news for you, it will technically be 3 radars. Because the export version will be different again. The whole point in holding back until 2021 is to get the more advanced radar, rather than opting for Radar 1 in 2018.

https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/whr_1-15_maximising_european_combat_air_power_0.pdf

As of early 2015, the Rafale can be considered a more-mature platform than
the Eurofighter; its active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, whilst
significantly smaller than the CAPTOR-E – on contract for integration in the
Eurofighter from 2018

However, given the performance of the
basic airframe – and the significant capabilities on contract for operational
deployment by 2020 – that potential should surpass that of the Rafale in
many respects. The longer development timescale of the Eurofighter is partly
due to the differing operational requirements and priorities of the four main
partner nations.

Progressive
enhancements to PIRATE and the accuracy of passive location and electronic
warfare capabilities through the DASS, coupled with the radar 2 CAPTOR-E
being developed for the RAF, together offer a boost to situational awareness
and detection capabilities, which should make RAF Typhoons formidable
opponents against even LO designs from the early 2020s.

Spain and Germany are currently committed to the radar
1+ version of CAPTOR-E

I am not implying anything, having no idea of the nationality of the Buk crew, and not knowing what motive they had for firing at MH17. Nor do I know what motive Russia had for making a Buk TELAR (with or without a Russian crew) available to the rebels. What I do know (and what Russia knew) is that the TELAR has very limited air-surveillance capability, so was not safe to use in stand-alone mode when in proximity to an international air route. Jane’s realised this, and explained the situation in a TV interview conducted on the day of the shoot-down, so it should have been equally obvious to whoever in Russia decided to provide a Buk TELAR to the rebels.

Neither of these is an official source. I was citing the figures given on the manufacturers’ websites.

Did you ever bother to read the final report of the Dutch Safety Board? I suggest that you read the section ‘5.3 Shootings involving military aircraft’ (pages 181-185). There was no information that a non-MANPADS SAM system was in rebel hands.

It is a question that you want to ask, and nor necessarily one that other forum members might want to pose. The JIT is not a Dutch investigation. It is an international investigation led by the Public Prosecution Service of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, but with members from Belgium, Ukraine, Australia, and Malaysia.

Once again, I suggest that you read section 5.3 of the final report of the Dutch Safety Board.

You obviously do not know the difference between the procedures and responsibilities for a flight plan and a NOTAM. Let me cite the pages you have linked to:

Rule 53

(a) In order to enhance their safety whenever in the vicinity of hostilities, civilian aircraft must file with the relevant air traffic control service required flight plans, which will include information as regards, e.g., registration, destination, passengers, cargo, identification codes and modes (including updates en route).

(b) Civilian aircraft ought not to deviate from a designated air traffic service route or flight plan without air traffic control clearance unless unforeseen conditions arise, e.g., safety or distress, in which case appropriate notification ought to be made immediately.

Rule 55
Whenever feasible, a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) ought to be issued by Belligerent Parties, providing information on military operations hazardous to civilian or other protected aircraft and which are taking place in given areas including on the activation of temporary airspace restrictions.

So it is the responsibility of the airline to file the flight plan, and it is the responsibility of the belligerents to file the NOTAMs.

Cobblers, show me a MANPADS possessed by the rebels that could hit an aircraft above 20,000ft. It was known and if the Dutch report says that then it’s an outright lie, plain and simple. Even I knew they had more than MANPADS after the transport plane got shot down – me, in my living room.

Well there you go. After the 9/11 investigation and all the redacted pages, I don’t have much faith in such investigations anymore.

From what you’ve mentioned so far, it seems like a wholly non-fact-based investigation. “No evidence of non-MANPADS SAM.” LIE. “Suggestion of possible rebel air force.” LIE.

And who is the relevant ATC over the Donbass, which was controlled by the rebels? I would argue that it wasn’t the Ukrainian ATC.

Ought not deviate, exactly. So the rebels didn’t get the original flight path and didn’t get notice of the deviation and weren’t aware of how to establish dialogue with the plane.

The belligerant never got the flight plan, if they did then they could have responded with a NOTAM.