dark light

Bharatheeyan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 69 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: ERIEYE and Blind Spots #2522460
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    You can CLAIM 360 degrees. What I tried to show that the antenna is a PLANAR ARRAY, for which it is IMPOSSIBLE to have 360 degree coverage. Any amount of electronics is not going to radiate energy close to 90 degrees from a planar array antenna.

    totoro, a rotating array have real 360 degree coverage.

    And I am not disputing that a beam type antenna can not serve the purpose. All I am saying that the 360 degrees claim is bogus.

    in reply to: ERIEYE and Blind Spots #2522504
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    OK, there might have been choices. That doesn’t mean a better platform was bought. Maybe 360 degrees coverage was not deemed necessary for the intended situation. Maybe the erieye was free from the strings USA is going to attach. Or even maybe there is commercial reasons. Who knows.

    The point is, the antenna system used on the erieys CAN NOT scan 360 degrees.

    in reply to: ERIEYE and Blind Spots #2522550
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Forget the chinese. That is always the Plan ‘Z’. when was the E2C offered? Late eighties right? I don’t think if there was a current offer, the erieye would have been bought.

    in reply to: ERIEYE and Blind Spots #2522584
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Well, the countries might had other worse problems or priorities. AFAIK, one of them didn’t have much choice anyway.

    I am not saying that erieye is a useless product. All I am saying that the claim that it has 360 Degrees coverage is a technical impossibility, unless you include the plane itself maneuvering.

    in reply to: ERIEYE and Blind Spots #2522622
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Firstly, the basic antenna technology doesn’t change. If it did, that fact would have been evident (like a Mk-2)

    Secondly, and more importantly, look at the pictures of the array. That did not change at all.

    in reply to: ERIEYE and Blind Spots #2522633
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    I have no inclination to spend $20 to verify something I already know. Post any information here if you want to make a point.

    in reply to: ERIEYE and Blind Spots #2522673
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Sure. When did ERIEYE enter service? 1997.

    in reply to: FC-1 Prototype 04: the Saga Continues #2531117
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Harry, Airframes with Lift unstability can be flown manually. Those with Drag unstability can’t. This was discussed to death on BR LCA thread a million years ago. People had trouble understanding drag unstability then as well.

    in reply to: FC-1 Prototype 04: the Saga Continues #2537473
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    The FC-1 is no unstable design like the J-10. It is one of relaxed stability

    Sens, do you have any source for that?

    in reply to: FC-1 Prototype 04: the Saga Continues #2539236
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Question. Is FC-1 a stable, relaxed stability or unstable design? I thought it was a stable design. The sinodefence link doesn’t talk about stability.

    Post sources please.

    in reply to: J-10 versus LCA-AESA #2548167
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    You can reduce it further by using hybrid composites so not having to worry to much about the shape

    Sure. Dunno if ADA uses that on LCA. You can put a variety of stuff within the composite and alter its properties. But carbon is the best absorbant out there. You can add ferrites and ceramics to get some phase shift if needed.

    in reply to: Pakistan AF #2549047
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    the JF-17 was designed and produced from scratch to PAF requirements — see any difference?? As for being a ‘co-developer’ thats what CATIC says — take it up with them

    OK. When was the FC-1 project originally started as super-7? When did China decide to do it alone and rename it FC-1? When was the co-development agreement sighed?

    From Sinodefense: 1986, 1990, 1999

    How come joining a project NINE whole years after it started allows you to specify it from scratch?

    in reply to: J-10 versus LCA-AESA #2549628
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Yes, but they’re also frequency selective. Given their molecular structure, only certain wavelengths are absorbed

    The molecular structure has nothing to do with it. the wavelengths are orders of magnitude bigger than the filament size itself, let alone the molecular structure.

    You can vary the impedance of the barrier by adjusting the weave. In any case, the barrier would be a better match to the free space than a metal barrier, resulting in significant absorption. Also, considering the multi layer weave, the energy can not PASS through it for sure. So, it is only the reflected energy you have to worry about. That is going to be significantly lower than a metal surface, any way you cut it.

    in reply to: J-10 versus LCA-AESA #2550737
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    Cobrato, two points:

    1. Carbon fiber composites DO ABSORB radar energy. Glass fiber ones don’t..
    2. Reflecting radar energy is just ONE means of RCS reduction. Absorption is a major factor. Otherwise how will you justify the RAM coating?

    RAM Coated Carbon fiber composites can be in fact practically a black body (ie it absorbs the energy completely).

    in reply to: A simple explanation of phased array radar. #2588067
    Bharatheeyan
    Participant

    All the kool things like datalink, energy weapon etc require one missing link, that is the capability to synthesize the microwave in DSP.

    With current phase shift based technology, it is impossible to form a beam with a wideband microwave. currently you can only have omnidirectional antennas for datalinks. with only looking forward, what good that will be?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 69 total)