MarcellogoSo after a quick search and a going back a few pages without clear result… can anyone clarify as to which no. of flying prototype s/n 056 is? Is it the 8th, or 9th?
And how many more prototypes are expected before LRIP or first batch production (and are those expected to use izd 30, or continue with interim engines)?
Much appreciated.
Knaapo site say -8 http://www.knaapo.ru/press-centre/gallery/124/
They told 12 with the last being for India, production of first batch of serial aircraft is scheduled for last quarter of 2017.
Surely those ones wouldn’t have -30 aboard.
Not really clear what prototypes 10 &11 would have aboard however, they that the 9th would have full avionic package while for the successive ones there are voices about “structural refinements” without any more precise indication AFAIK.
Please, repeat with me: there is not LRIP in SovietRussia, there is not LRIP in SovietRussia, there is not LRIP in SovietRussia, there is not LRIP in SovietRussia…
As there is not IOC and no total predefinited production numbers at start of any program: they contract every single production batch separately.
MarcellogoWell if the war goes all out new pilots would be rushed into combat ASAP, don’t expect them to be very well trained on both sides.
Previously the idea was to call back veteran pilots both retired, working in civilian airlines or destined to other duties.
Now i didn’tknow if they are stillpossible to do it.
Former F-16A were for as an example sold to foreign countries and I didn’t know how much of stored MiGs are actually still in flying condition.
Production gap is probaly too great to cover it with stored planes and reserve pilots.
MarcellogoEvery air force has hundreds or thousands of retired planes which can be reused immediately. They need at least a datalink to be able to communicate with the stealth planes, that would increase their effectiveness and survivability.
It may also make sense to keep some old dual seater planes in service in training squadrons to keep the pilots capable of flying them. The pilots could have like 50h of flight time on them per year plus simulator training. The ground crews could also get some training for basic maintenance. The plane would probably be shot down within 10-20 sorties, so there’s no need to be able to performed advanced maintenance.
Most pilots survive when their aircraft are shot down so they could be reused on another plane quickly. And if a pilot ejects, his JHMCS is likely not to be damaged. So if the retired planes are upgraded in advanced to use the AIM-9X, they could become potent in air to air, especially if the enemy is beginning to run out of BVR missiles. Modern decoys could also increase the survivability of the old planes.
So upgrade all the old retired F-15, F-16, F-18s that are still in flying condition with modern datalink, modern decoys and AIM-9X, and set up about 2 training squadrons with dual seaters for each type.
Emh, not.
Ejection seat saves life but they often provoke vertebral compression fractures, it is not invalidating but need therapy.
In any case, quality is not just a material thing: it enompasses also training, leadership,and operative doctrine.
During WWII the real advantage of Germans was about their cadre quality at all levels of the gerarchical scale and it lasted until the last days of conflict while the exceptional level of Japanese navy pilots was obtained thru a very long training and it backfired spectacularly after the Midway disaster as they were never able to recoverate the losses.
MarcellogoYes they would have been simulating BVR and WVR weapons. The J-20 is designed to carry several medium to long-ranged AAM. The primary BVR weapon is the PL-12G and possible ramjet versions (PL-21?) in the future. PL-12G is like the Chinese equivalent to the AIM-120D. At least 4x can be carried in the main weapons bay. Weapons integration tests for the PL-10 and PL-12G had started in 2013.
I’d really caution against the validity of these rumours — I mean they make complete sense of course, especially considering the kind of results that F-22s and F-35s were able to achieve against 4th generation fighters in their early exercises as well — the amount of detail they carry and the original source in the threads are a bit dubious imho.
Yes,what I wanted to highlight is that they put on trial (if report is correct) both the effectiveness of 5gen planes than the tactic (of russian origin) to shoot down Awacs using long range missiles.
Double gain then, even a little numbers of 5 gen aircraft can make a difference if used like so.
MarcellogoLet’s begin from the first step: J-20 shot down AWACS first, so would it imply they are actualy able to carry long range AAMs?
MarcellogoI’d agree with the first, somehow managed served its roles in recce and interception despite its lethal design flaws.
But the second and third? The Lightning combined the interception performance of the F-104 with agility better than the Mirage III. The MiG-19 out-performed and out-manouevred the F-100 and made the Super Mystère look pathetic. Both achieved what was asked of them. Both could have achieved more with proper development, but progress overtook them.
Lighting weighted > than 14 tons and carried 2 IR missiles, a F-104S less than seven and carried 2 Sparrow and up to 4 Sidewinders + superior velocity, superior range , superior quote and essential for an interceptor, climb speed of 270 m/s against a ridicule 100m/s.
Rest is however correct.
MarcellogoGo to wikipedia for them first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_electronically_scanned_array
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_array
Let’s say first that they are both ESA i.e. they can steer their radar beam without phisically moving their own antennas.
They are both composed by an an array of small antennas , up to several hundreds to even thousands elements, each one provided of a phase shifter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_shift_module that allow to slighty differentiate the time of their respective emissions so to made them superpose and form an angled plane wave in the desired direction.
They can so scan their own F.o.W. with a way greater velocity than a mechanical steered one.
Phase shifter allows also to emit separate beams in several direction and to tone it for different tasks as fine tracking or missile guidance.
The difference between the two is just in the fact that in PESA the radio waves are given by a single emission source to all antennas in the same time while in the more sophisticated AESA there is a single miniaturized emitter module for any antenna.
You would find many sources pumping up to the max the advantage of the second solution toward the first one but in reality the great performance gap is between them both and the precedent mechanically scanned ones , also because more modern Pesa radars are actually an hybrid with AESA ones ( i.e. they have a separate receiver for each of their antenna elements) so to allow them to make use of certain operative modes that were considered an exclusive of just the latter ones.
MarcellogoIt seems me that the ability to supercruise how is descripted by the F-35 pilot above is something without any connection to a real significance.
You could in the same manner take a Mig-31 speed it up until it reach mach 2.8, after that close AB and keep it flying at full military power for a long time before it get back under the speed of sound.
Better also, it can just go down to minimum AB and still it can keep on going at a greater distance and velocity of an F-22a in supercruise before to reach bingo.
First one procedure has no any operative meaning when compared to the second, so what would it be something significant to the F-35 instead?
MarcellogoYes, and?
In the sense, where is really the new there?
The fact that F-35 is actually the slowest of all fighters actually in production, bar maybe the JF-17, is something that would have been clear from the beginning.
So why you have discovered it only now and decided to dedicate it a thread?
MarcellogoQuote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
The Coalition has released terrorists from Mosul, and they came to Palmyra. The Coalition supports terrorists.
No doubt about that.Nic
Surprise ,surprise French neo-fascist agreeing with Russian neo-fascist .:applause:
Pardon them, please: they have to talk about something while waiting, together with citizens of thirty american states, for the Inauguration of the Presidency of the American one. :angel:
Let’s cut it short: ISIS has retaken Palmyra, UNESCO List site, there is someone such a lowlife to actually enjoing the news?
MarcellogoDid i say the opposite?
No, just a Spudman pavlovian reaction. Go along, nothing to see here.
MarcellogoProve it. Because track while scan technology has been around since 1951. It’s not a new technology.
Facepalm!
Mad RAT : you are mismatching TWO different things, one is the search radar, whose function is to scan a large portion of air space and the SARH terminal guidance for missiles.
In the first case you can locate several traces with your scanning and with track while scan function follow a number of them in their course, obtaining the data concerning their own spatial location, distance and angle with 2D radar, quote also with 3D ones and by comparing a succession of such data through time also velocity.
Numbers of object respectively spotted, recognized (that’s another great problem of automated antimissile systems…) and tracked differs, sometimes also greatly as radar systems obtain their own data not immediately but through time.
In any case ater the search radar has done its own part still remain that little problem of taking the tracked object down by forcible means, planes use by preference missiles with IR and above all radar homing guidance both semiactive than active.
In case of semiactive one missile have a forward receive only antenna that point the missile itself toward a target being illuminated by a CW radio source.
This is usually done utilizing a separate device called track radar as it need to use a narrow CW beam instead of a wide pulsating one like in the case of the search radar.
So, usually you would need one of such devices for every target you intend to illuminate regardless by the numbers of track your SEARCH radar can get.
Even the AEGIS system need such devices for the terminal phase of the engagement when using SARH missiles, so in case of sea skimming missiles, that have the damning habit to pop up of a sudden well inside the space in which this phase happen have a reduced utility on that regard (also because its own radar horizon is quite low…)
MarcellogoPRF setting at close engagement like that would be ridiculously high so i dont think it takes more than micro seconds to change from detection to tracking.Moreover, once missiles is launched the engagement already started.
Let me say you seriously underestimate how it was difficult to track such targets until recently: they would had to be detected by the 2D surface scan radar (not the 3D AD one) as soon as the entered in the radar horizont.
To just recognize and track it you would have needed several radar scans, after it you would have needed to pass it to the tracking radar, repeat procedure, begin CW illumination and wait until the missile you launched reach it to detonate charge, all of this in the heaviest clutter environment possible, as sea surface reflect radio waves.
Most of dedicated antimissile systems used and still use optical devices to track missiles and command guidance/beam riding instead of RH for just this reason, you know.
MarcellogoWe actually doesn’t know much about effectiveness of the most of such systems, unfortunately.
Actually, antiship missiles were used just an handful of times and not anytime against Soviet/ Russian ships greater than a corvette.
Same could be said against Italian, that also featured an integrated multilayer system or against any ship using the RAM system.
So actually the great part of antimissile/CIWS weapons are still never challenged and also the other were so scarcely that one couldn’t get a statistic from them.
MarcellogoAngular accuracy of SPY-1 probably been enough for short distance terminal guide without illuminator. Given its aperture size the resolution cell would be quite small already.
I dont see how a missile moving at Mach 2 is only detected from 10 km. A more realistic distance would be around 25 – 30 km for sea skimming supersonic missiles if we assume the destroyer have no air cover
It would probably detected at such a distance, tracking would require some second and some other would be needed for the missile to be launched and reach the target.
Hence because we can say that there is not a practical difference between using a missile like Standard and a smaller one in such engagements.
On my own country’s navy there is not such a thing also when it come on using medium caliber flak systems like 40/70 and Super Rapido, go figure…
Sign In
