dark light

moon_light

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 913 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Chinese air power thread 18 #2131964
    moon_light
    Participant

    Saw this on SB, does anyone have higher resolution pics? and in the first photo what does it say in the little table on the right?
    http://i.imgur.com/Ynp8ShH.jpg
    https://s18.postimg.org/t9wr9yhjt/Capture21.png

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2131968
    moon_light
    Participant

    Defense aerospace is practically the French equivalent of Sputnik.

    in reply to: Clean Rafale & Gripen RCS is 5 m2 and 3 m2. Not .05 & .03 #2136674
    moon_light
    Participant

    Blue apple

    Yeah totally. Straight through

    I. Stop being so insecure every time someone mentions straight and intake in the same sentence.
    II. On the ground, PAK-FA body pointing down because the front landing gear is shorter.

    in reply to: Clean Rafale & Gripen RCS is 5 m2 and 3 m2. Not .05 & .03 #2137100
    moon_light
    Participant

    oh and this should show that Sputnik is not some Russian govt editorialized operation

    Sputnik is government funded and it is one of the most bias among these tabloid new channels, up there with defense-aerospace.

    in reply to: Israel F-35 damaged. Bird collision or Syrian S-200 ? #2139983
    moon_light
    Participant

    a bird strike that would make the airplane definitely out of service because “stealth coating was damaged” sounds strange to the least

    According to the very source that they linked, the F-35 came back to service in the upcoming day.

    The IDF Spokesperson’s Office stated: “These allegations are incorrect. In preparation for a routine landing of the F-35, two injuries were found in the fuselage following a collision with the birds. The plane made a normal landing at the base and was sent to the usual maintenance treatment following such injuries. The plane will be used and will return for flight in the coming days. “

    http://www.kan.org.il/item/?itemId=23623

    in reply to: JF-17 vs J-10 vs LCA #2142925
    moon_light
    Participant

    J-10 is a Rafale made in China
    Fc-1 = Chinese F-16 Block 50/52
    LCA is Mirage 2000 made in India

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2143711
    moon_light
    Participant

    The number of beam positions equation basically states the area of the search sector divided by the cross sectional area of the beamwidth.

    To summary, the number of beam positions equivalent to the area of search sector (in degrees) /area of beamwidth (in degrees). Correct?. It’s like filling a rectangle with small squares.
    So if the radar can’t scan vertically, wouldn’t it make sense to only consider the horizontal length?. Vertical length is irrelevant because radar can’t scan up and down.

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2143747
    moon_light
    Participant

    Well have you looked at the equation i posted ? It’s not simply like that. The beamwidth is squared.

    I did, but to be honest, I don’t reall understand why it can’t be calculated my way. Can you explain in layman terms?

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2143756
    moon_light
    Participant

    You don’t divide scan area with beamwidth

    But why not? what is the difference?. I still find it weird that you got 250 seconds.

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2143892
    moon_light
    Participant

    @stealthflanker

    Beamwidth for Horizontal is Narrow because of number of elements. Linear array beamwidth is basically 2/N Thus for array of 24 elements it is 2/24=0.08 Radian or 4.7 degrees. Vertical beamwidth would basically be the element’s beamwidth which in this calculator assumed to be a patch with 114 degrees of vertical beamwidth. and no lens optimization. Beam positions need to be scanned is thereby low as the radar only scan in azimuth.

    Horizontal beam width of 4.7 degrees, if the search sector is 120 degrees then we have 25-26 beam positions. How did you get 250 seconds total scan time if dwell time is 0.3 seconds? I got approximately 7-8 seconds total scan time.
    With vertical beamwidth of 114 degrees, wouldn’t radar range heavily reduced by clutter?

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2143980
    moon_light
    Participant

    The assumption is Very Long dwell strategy of 0.3 seconds per beam positions making total scan time of 250 seconds

    How wide is the beamwidth?. That sounds like either the beam very narrow or the search sector is very wide.

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2143984
    moon_light
    Participant

    @stealthflanker

    Just want to share bit of attempt in calculating “potential” range of L-band wing leading edge radar.

    You made a mistake, there are only 24 elements on 2 leading edge, 12 on each. So your T/R number is double.

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2148008
    moon_light
    Participant

    @stealthflanker:
    I mean there are too variables so i don’t know what to choose to calculate range. For example: I want to estimate air to air range of radars like APG-77 and APG-81. But i have no idea what to put in Doppler filter per band or system loss budget. Even pulse width is hard for me to decide, especially with technology like pulse compression. Basically what said by totoro.

    in reply to: AESA Radar range calculator. #2148699
    moon_light
    Participant

    So many variables iam overwhelmed with choices.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2152469
    moon_light
    Participant

    Since all the load on the internal suspension, the flight range is affected only by weight changes.

    This is wrong, flight range affected by cruising altitude and combat time more than weight change.
    http://slideplayer.com/6380027/22/images/13/Combat+Radius+2+%D1%85+500-kg+%281%2C102-lb%29+bombs+2+%D1%85+250-kg+%28551-lb%29+bombs.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 913 total)