Sinse we do not have any flight manual from EF, but rather ADV’s and some Ausairpower source..
It could vary a bit, but for once a agree with you. Its not in the subsonic speed regime. But rather in Transonic up to a given Supersonic M number.

Which is a step in the right direction here.
All of a sudden the Mig-29 9.12 might NOT be able to climb faster vs Tiffy, from deck up after all.

Fixed.

In case you haven’t noticed I’ve stopped responding to you, why keep quoting me? At least do so without twisting my words. My point is you cannot compare T/W of aircraft based on two numbers. Those graphs prove just that, nothing more nothing less.

What ram effect is that? You are talking only about a normal shock. If supersonic compression is done on compressor face, you would only lose thrust from that.

Again, pure ignorance. Climb rate is totally irrelevant from supercruise. Climb rate ONLY represents the excess power at a given altitude and speed. And since every single aircraft on the face of the earth suffer from same physical phenomenon called “wavedrag”, they have less excess power at above M0,9. That is somewhat reduced at quite high speeds as V component makes up the higher drag, but that is irrelevant to the S/L excess power.

So Typhoon, just like Su-27, MiG-23/29, F-4/5/14/15/16/18 will have its highest low altitude excess power just before wavedrag multiplies the overall drag of the aircraft. It can be M0,85, it can be M0,9; but all those aircraft achive their highest SEP there for a reason; and that reason applies to Typhoon pretty well.

DRY T-D is higher we know ONLY that. This has no relation at all to MAX AB thrust. You don’t need to complicate things as such, DRY thrust climb rate of MiG-29 at M1,1+ would be all negative (MiG-29 would need to trade altitude if it needs to maintain speed), but at conditions Typhoon can supercruise is all greater than or equal to 0.

Once again you are spitting nonsense, and posting completely unrelated formulae from your physics 101 book to make it look like a well thought post, but that only helps to show your ignorance.

Can you calculate the “angle of ascent” for MiG-29 at its highest climb rate for me?
345 m/s climb rate at 306m/s airspeed (M0,9 @ S/L). Can you even explain what this means?

From M0,9 to M1,2, MiG-29’s Thrust increases by 12% due to supersonic inlets + engine design allowing it, but its Cd0 doubles due to its aerodynamics. This results in less excess power.
From M0,9 to M1,2 Typhoon’s thrust decreases by X amount due to its single shock pitot inlet, and its Cd0 increases by Y amount due laws of nature. Put whatever X or Y you want, This still results in less excess power.

Because you keep quoting me, simples.
I think if I have to explain ram effect, we’re done here. Ram effect increases static pressure by slowing done the airflow. The Typhoon uses a fixed ramp, not a pitot, so there is an oblique shock first.

And the Typhoon is best shaped to avoid wave drag and suffer less drag supersonic. The supercruise is very relevant because it demonstrates a superior T-D for the Typhoon at supersonic speeds, which is an integral part of the Climb Rate Equation:

[(T-D)/W]*V

Afterburning can be seen as a percentage augmentation over dry thrust, so we can make a very good estimate of it.

You just can’t seem to handle that despite the MiG-29’s variable intakes, the Typhoon has better T-D at supercruise and a higher top speed (M2.35).

http://www.bundesheer.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml

It’s therefore extremely likely that it also has superior T-D in a climb. Hardly surprising given that it’s a much newer aircraft.

Don’t need to quantitatively calculate it. T-D is higher than for MiG-29, W is the same, therefore it’s higher than for MiG-29 by virtue of:

Angle of ascent = arcsin [(T-D)/W]

It means you have no understanding of maths because a climb rate of 345m/s is impossible at 306m/s.

You obviously don’t read anything I post. THE TYPHOON DOES NOT HAVE A PITOT INTAKE, IT’s A FIXED RAMP. Hence why every assertion you’re making is wrong.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_shock

You’ll find that there’s very little difference in total pressure losses between even an F-16’s pitot and F-15’s variable geometry intakes until M1.5. In fact the difference can be seen to be ~1% at M1.2 and ~5% at M1.5. A fixed ramp is likely to be ~5% down at M2.0 compared to variable and the difference will be negligible (<0.1%) at M1.2, probably even zero. In fact, you can see the pitot works better at subsonic speed, so maybe a fixed ramp works better at low supersonic speeds too.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248540[/ATTACH]

Less excess power huh? So how come the Typhoon can supercruise at M1.5, whereas the MiG-29 struggles to break M1.0 on dry thrust.

TIP: Perhaps you should read more and write much less.

Well, what a surprise!

So were other airlines. There was no evidence for a threat above 30,000 ft.

It was shot down at an latitude of less than 30,000 ft.

Plane shot down at circa 25,000ft. Would it be too much to infer one could be shot down at 26,000ft? How about 25,100ft or 25,001ft? I think you get my drift. It’s no longer likely to be a MANPADS at that altitude, so you have to assume capability to shoot down an airliner.

Other airlines were idiots too. It could be argued, just as easily that others weren’t because many others were not flying over Ukraine at all.

Every rule in the International Law Air Warfare Manual got ignored and the result was a downed airliner.

I seem the recall that the Dutch safety board reported that there had been no deviations from the filed flight plan.

Well that’s bullcack because the plane was due to fly South of Donbass, but was diverted due to a storm. If they really said that, they didn’t investigate very well at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-course-storms-pilot

When it was shot down, the doomed jet was many miles north of the flight paths it had used on previous days to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport.

Nico Voorbach, a pilot who flew the same journey earlier this summer for KLM, and who is president of the European Cockpit Association, said poor weather might have been the reason why flight MH17 found itself in the sights of a surface-to-air missile launcher. The aircraft was shot down in the separatist Donetsk region of east Ukraine.

Voorbach said: “I heard that they were diverting from some showers. I think there were thunderclouds. You would ask air traffic control to divert left or right, and they would give you the permission.”

There is a reason why modern a/c like SH, Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen have reduced RCS — it’s not just for fun!

Does the F-15 have reduced RCS? Does it have sensor fusion? Etc, etc.

It’s a benefit if you’re flying with just missiles and preferably if 4 of them are semi-recessed, but start addition copious amounts of pylons for a strike role and things go down hill fast. This is where the PAK-FA will benefit despite having some unstealthy features. By carrying its load internally, it can at least retain its clean RCS.

That remains to be seen, especially with rafale F3R standard coming in 2018, the Indian upgrades (scope to be confirmed) and the rafale F4 standard with deliveries expected in 2024 for French Air Force. You could also add a potential UAE order with their own upgrades which DASSAULT CEO expects in 2017 after French presidential election. Every program is evolving…

Only the F4 standard will bring anything close to Radar 2 in technology, but with the detriment of using a smaller antenna. Whilst RF attack is mentioned for F4 radar, RF cyberwarfare is not.

As I see it, you’ll be left with two aircraft having roughly the same capabilities but one will have a better radar and better performance.

Link?

Never heard of a DRFM-based system that isn’t AESA.

http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/eagle-passive-active-warning-survivability-system–epawss-
http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-ew-system-installed-f-15

Those scores were achieved with pre-scripted scenarios to benchmark each aircafts in similar conditions ex for AtA (offesive and defensive). Sensor Fusion comes really into play against elusive threats or when you want to remain passive to sneak in undetected which was not necessarly part of the scenario who remained pretty basics QRA interception vs F18 and then a defensive scenario against F18s.

However if you read the full Swiss evaluation rafale sensor fusion is explicitely underlined as being one of the rafale main strenght. French pilots one several occasion also stress the sensor fusion as being a decisive advantage against the Typhoon in AtA exercises.

They also mentioned the lack of HMCS as a weak point….. both the Swiss and French pilots at A2A exercises. Swings and roundabouts. It’s all about avionics and I don’t see the Typhoon being behind the Rafale in 5 years time, quite the opposite. EW (0.5) ahead of Gripen, hardly matches the hype.

It’s a slot antenna, the antenna gains (or beamwidths, they’re two faces of the same coin) are within a couple of dB…Physcis…basic physics…

Beamwidth = angular resolution on your first contact.

Now if you want to argue that integrating multiple returns over time will get you better accuracy, sure. But that’s true of a RWR too so we’re back to square one.

I never implied such thing, stop applying your misunderstanding about how radar and RWR work and try to learn something instead.

A radar array sums the signals from the different elements. It doesn’t try to measure any phase difference because by definition all these signals are supposed to be in phase and what is not is rejected (that’s how the radar antenna gain is achieved). Direction of signal is deducted from the direction the beam was pointing to, accuracy of an individual measurement is limited by the beamwidth.

A RWR only process signal from 4 or 5 measurement points (so no meaningful antenna gain) but does so with a radio chain that is extremely carefully calibrated with matching lines, very low-noise amplifier and a timing reference that is well in excess of what is required for a radar. From a signal point of view, it is a much more complex piece of engineering.

Now you could try to measure phase difference between the signals coming from different elements of the radar array but you introduce a shifter on each of your measurement chains and by experience I can tell you that the error they introduce is higher than the difference you’re trying to measure… Not to mention that you get an awful lot of radio noise (1000+ wires all carrying the same signal, hope you don’t mind cross-interferences), thermal dilatation of the antenna is going to warp the backplate and change your carefully calibrated distance between elements and finally, putting ultra-low-noise amplifiers in the back-end of a radar dissipating several kW with the associated temperature rise and noise is a terrible idea.

Or to make the story shorter: AESA radar and RWR don’t work on the same principles and have vastly different requirements in terms of circuit performance.

Yes, that’s why there’s a shifter within each element (in PESA, the array is made of shifters and nothing else, in an AESA the array also includes transistors for emission and reception) that steers the beam.

A coherent signal is sent to each element, shifted at element level before sending, the echo is received and then shifted back at element level and the now-coherent received signals are summed. My comment about the “same phase shift” is about emission and reception (and then only in absolute value, i.e. the signal is shifted in the opposite way at reception), not between elements.

This double shifting is also why trying to measure phase differences between different elements is non-sensical, the shifters don’t have perfect accuracy (nor do they need to to achieve good enough performance) and the phase differences we’re talking about are well below the variations introduced by the individual shifters.

Or in this case, shapes, basic shapes. Physics is high school stuff, shapes is play school stuff.

So you’ve changed it to being first contact now, having been proven completely wrong on the matter of beamwidth= accuracy.

No, no, no, no. How can an RWR uses conical scanning or monopulse techniques?

I’m afraid you did imply it. Just one of about half a dozen inaccuracies.

That might be how the beam is generated but it does not describe how it is received. You can’t possibly guarantee that all reflected radiation is in phase at every element for every possible target position.

Umm no, the received reflected energy is relatively weak compared to the outgoing and measurements are passive by definition.

To make the story even shorter still: Nearly every assertion you’ve made so far is wrong.