Вероятность обнаружения падает с ростом ЭПР?! Где ты взял эту потешную мурзилку?!

ENG: Detection probability decrease with RCS increase?! Where you have taken this funny pic?!

Maybe it’s probability of not being detected.

The distances that the AN/ALR-94 detect and track targets is said to be considerably in excess of the APG-77. As to accuracy and exactly how capable these systems are? They are about as classified as it gets. Companies will discuss radar, personel and company spokesman will discuss the capabilities of systems like EOTS. You will here nothing but generalities about these integrated defensive avionics systems. So if your looking for specifics, good luck.

I posted a journal that discusses the missile warning and countermeasures aspects of these systems in the “not F-35” thread

Well yes, passive detection is always longer in range due to 1/R^2 vs 1/R^4 rule.

Classified they may be but nobody has ever mentioned an RWR based kill during a live test so I hesitate to call it a capability as of yet. Whilst exact details of RWR spec may be guarded I’m quite sure news of the test would be released publicly even if the exact range wasn’t. Rafale indeed claimed a passive kill test but on further inspection it used a laser for ranging and, given that fact, must have been only marginally outside visual range.

Well actually the AN/ALR-94 and Spectra have released a few details on bearing accuracy at certain ranges.

So what crashed at Boscombe Down in 1994? That’s the $1 million dollar question.

Like what ?

Canards on J-20, IRST on PAK-FA, exterior rim on canopy.

It adds to the maintenance burden on a deployed unit. Just like an engine issue would result in the airframe RTB an issue with the swash plate would also result in a RTB due system failure.

Sure the likelihood is very small but fixed arrays remove that possibility altogether.

And how many times has an engine, which is a much more highly stressed item, failed in flight of a Typhoon? Zero. They have scheduled maintenance, there is no RTB. The RAM guys calculate MTBF and schedule replacement well inside that and a swashplate ain’t that expensive.

Because fixed arrays have a failed swash-plate on a permanent basis.

I think FBW reffering to mid course guide , not using RWR as targeting system

I understood that to be what he meant but I would think IRST was infinitely more accurate than even the best RWRs (certainly on bearing) and even it’s capacity for longer range engagements is questionable.

Ah, i didn’t bother replying to that specifically. You are still not getting my point, or you are delibaretely twisting your own comments to came up on top. My point was (and is still) quite easy to understand:

A lower wing loading does not ALWAYS lead up to increased performance. I’ve just proved that, by making a calculation on actual k and cd0 of a real life operational combat aircraft. You can pick arbitrary k and cd0 numbers, you will even find cd0 to be ballpark around 0,005 if you look solely at airfoils and not whole airframe, and claim YOU THINK they WOULD BE similar to Typhoon; no proof but only because you like them to, so that they support your argument better.

Again I will stick to my original comment. A lower wing loading does not automagically increase performance. I’ve proven just that MiG-29’s wings are enlarged, and all its other specifications stay the same, its low altitude sustained turn rates will decrease, and I’ve used MiG-29’s real life data to prove that. I’ve never said a lower wing loading will decrease performance throughout the envelope. If you really halve the air density (15k feet), and not slow down like you suggest but instead speed up to calculate 9G point you will find STR to be similar, if you decrease it by 50%, however aircraft with lower wing loading will be vastly superior. Congrats, you have just reached 30k feet. Hence my usual comment, Low wing loading = achieve superior performance at higher altitude at the cost of low altitude performance. The “great advantage” you keep chespounding about Typhoon is nothing more than simple trade off of one performance criteria over the other.

Like I’ve said, I find it stupid to use an emprycal formula with k and Cd0. It can be twisted to virtually anything like you do. Take a realistic number from flight manual, deflect LE flaps and those will change. Those numbers won’t even be same at M0,6 and M0,8.

You are oversimplifying everything down to wingloading like every know-it-all new poster keeps doing in the first few months of their membership. I mean what is this really?

Well it is not, F-15 and Su-27 -despite quite similar layout- differ by 54%, a delta layout M2k and a conventional Su-27 differ as much as 105%. Can you show one reason -other than your own nationalistic bias- on *WHY* Clmax of Typhoon and Su-27 is “likely” to be less than 34%??? You don’t even have a suggestion about that, other than posting usual crap of “canards increase lift”.

Which brings us to:

Yes, all active posters on this forum know canards increase lift, the question is how much, and at what cost?

Ballpark 10-20% is accepted, but an all designs that added canard, removed them in later stages;

Mirage III doesn’t have canards. Mirage IIIs has close coupled canards, Mirage 2000 doesn’t have canards. WHY?
Su-27 doesn’t have canards, Su-27M and Su-30MKI has canards, Su-35 doesn’t have canards. WHY?

If canards are the magic tool like you claim, why remove them in following designs? The simple answer to both examples above is they’ve increased lift, at the cost of increased drag. Then lets apply this “cost” to the Typhoon as well? Have baseline M2k, improve it by 20%, lets add another 10% improvement due to “advanced aerodynamics” magic, and let me add another 20% improvement from my rear end, and you have Clmax of 1,42; still 30% away from what Su-27 has, unable to match its instantenious turns at subsonic speeds at any equalised fuel load.

Lets talk about equally increased drag when comparing T/W ? None of it simply doesn’t point Typhoon as the “winner” in overall subsonic maneuverability.

But I just proved that it does. You picked an arbitrary speed and air density where turn rate was not drag or lift limited, so you ended up with a similar result to level flight, where the aircraft with a lower wing area won. However, when you move to more demanding conditions at lower air density or lower speed, where Cl increases, the larger wing comes out on top and that is very much the design intent.

No, in your example, both aircraft had the same performance of 9g. One had more drag but that was irrelevant for the flight condition in question because it was not drag or lift limited.

I stated the text book where my Cd0 and k values originated from, I also used your values to prove your calculation wrong. A 9g turn at M0.9 at SL is not lift or drag limited, therefore your calculation is invalid. At 71% of the speed or half the air density, the Cl doubles and the larger wing comes out on top. Why not just accept the facts. rather than continuing to delude yourself by picking data points that aren’t at the edge of the envelope.

Another false premise, if you speed up at higher altitude you are then supersonic, which means the wing with the highest sweep and will see reduced drag. But this is not a maximum STR condition, which would be seen at lower speed at sea level. And there’s also no way you’re going to beat a canard delta in a supersonic turn using a Flanker.

Any evidence of that?

Canards do increase lift and a larger instability margin also improves turn rate, not to mention reducing trim drag. Then you have the fact that the Typhoon has a clear TWR advantage on top of all that, which also aids turn rate and lift.

At a cost which every European fighter entering service post-1997 found more than reasonable. But I’m sure an ’80s design is still superior, or stop kidding yourself.

Well the Su-37 did have canards but then it’s also running a tailplane, so it’s an oddity. If the tailplane is already balancing out the moment, then why would you have the canards? Possible cost issue on the M2000 also the focus has moved away from manoeuvrability lately anyway. Did the IIIS come out before or after the 2000?

….more imaginary figures. If you can approximate a Typhoon from an M2000, then I will approximate a Flanker from a MiG-21.

The TWR doesn’t just overcome drag, it also points in the lift direction, whereas the drag is tangential. Higher the Cl, higher the drag. The larger wing does not need to attain the same Clmax to win because Cl is only a measure of the lift per unit area. And in limiting conditions, if you can generate the same lift with a lower Cl, it’s better. Then we can also factor in the reduced drag of semi-recessed BVRAAM carriage.

On top of all this I have an actual eval where the Typhoon scored maximum for performance and a statement by Air International that it’s the only fighter bar the F-22 that can sustain 6+g at M1.6 at 36,000ft. So far all the Su-27 has is an 1980s design, some airshows of it fumbling about on TVC while falling out of the sky and some guy on a forum claiming it can out-handle everything in subsonic turns.