Had India announced it had decided to order a “Made in India F-21” how many years would it have been before aircraft actually rolled off the line – 3 years? 5 years? 10 years?

[USER=”18920″]Spitfire9[/USER] – If they acted immediately they could probably begin to turn out the first units in 3-4 years. But volume production? Yeah, that would be like 10 years. So I don’t see countries going for a made in India F-21 either. Not even from India. The market for 4th gen will be getting pretty small by then. Another stopgap Rafale order is quite possible, however.

[USER=”1416″]Scooter[/USER] – Yeah, I saw that same Janes article a few days back and didn’t post it as it seemed worthy of some skepticism. However, I don’t think you can call it absurd either. The two programs would be competing for the high thrust variants of the Ws-10 engine. But I haven’t found anything definite to indicate that China is, in fact, moving forward on J-11D, hence the speculative nature of the article.

Also, why do you put your own words in quotes? You know there is no point in that, right?

The VIAM article is a good find, Austin. The scalable core that they built with Aviadvigatel is probably the most important project in the Russian aviation industry right now as it opens up so many present and future opportunities. It will be interesting to see how they evolve it. Initial info in the contract docs for PD-35 looks quite promising, but he didn’t touch on CMCs in the interview and focused more on the metallurgy going into their designs. I see he mentioned an overall pressure ratio of 61 (as a long term goal), however. No doubt influenced by GE9X.

[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER] – He is referring to the fact that your analysis does not take into account variation with time. But your equations are indirectly time dependent. From your earlier post.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tcross eye geometry.png Views:t766 Size:t25.8 KB ID:t3859896″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859896″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”cross eye geometry.png”}[/ATTACH]

nomenclature

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tnomenclature.png Views:t754 Size:t31.8 KB ID:t3859897″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859897″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”nomenclature.png”}[/ATTACH]

error equation

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tampltude.png Views:t754 Size:t6.6 KB ID:t3859898″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3859898″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”ampltude.png”}[/ATTACH]

The “delta theta” in the equation above is defined as the length of the aperture created between your wingtip jammers multiplied by the cosine of that angle phi – which is the angle between the jamming aircraft’s actual heading vector and its apparent/false vector – and then divided by the range. Notice the two little boxes in the picture which denote right angles (90 degrees). The way cross eye jamming works is that the two wingtip emitters are set up so that the signal from each will arrive at the ‘threat’ at the same time but nearly 180 degrees out of phase. This creates the signal distortion. The actual return from the aircraft is still there (this is not active cancellation), but since J/S is high, the true signal is lost/masked in the distortion. The missile seeker attempts to follow a path normal to that wavefront distortion.

This is where the dashed line comes from. Without the wavefront distortion, the missile would try to lead the target – shown by angle theta being along its direction of motion. (The lower box, or right angle, shows the aircraft’s actual heading vector – which is slightly drawing to the right, or downward in the picture.) The wavefront distortion compels the missile to seek along angle delta theta where the missile keeps heading orthogonal to the dashed line, and whose right angle is given with the upper box. So, at the still time that you showed, the missile is off target.

But delta theta is L times cosine phi divided by range. As time passes, range decreases (because of the velocity vectors of both objects). Also, since the missile is improperly tracking the target, the cosine of angle phi will change too. I’ve tried to find a version with a direct time dependence – there definitely is one or more, even if they are in separate but related equations. I might try again later as I haven’t had much luck. But ActionJackson is right.

And the reason why this method doesn’t work without the correct J/S is because the true signal return is always still there. If the distortion isn’t enough to corrupt it then…

F-35 wreck still not found. The submarine rescue vessel Chiyoda assists the search.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-word-on-missing-japanese-f-35a-457540/

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-04-15/japanese-f-35-crash-undersea-search-begins

[USER=”39911″]TomcatViP[/USER] – That thing looks like a modern day He-111Z. It’s not a warplane though.

Washington dangles CAATSA to try to dissuade Egypt from purchasing 20 Su-35 fighters.

https://defence-blog.com/news/us-warns-egypt-over-russian-su-35-fighter-jets-deal.html

Has anybody been able to confirm whether Kuz suffered waterline or below waterline damage? I know articles talk about “hull damage” but without a specific description you can’t assess how difficult repairs would be. Back in WWII and the early years, a carrier’s hull would only extend to around main deck level, and the entire hangar and flight deck was a light structure that was classified as superstructure. So back then you could guarantee that “hull damage” would at least be in the vicinity of the waterline. Today, however, a carrier’s hull extends right up to the flight deck. “Hull damage” could be 50ft above the waterline. You don’t need a dry dock to fix that – a pier with a rail track so that you can bring in a crane for heavy lifts will do fine.