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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have no inclination to spend $20 to verify something I already know. Post any information here if you want to make a point.
Sure. When did ERIEYE enter service? 1997.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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?