dark light

emile

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 525 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: SAR radar effectiveness in air to surface mission #2328908
    emile
    Participant

    ML:
    Let’s do it simply.
    1) the more the power you have, the more the range detected you have.
    2) against 1) too powerful emitter will be the aircraft no longer adopted.
    3) for 2) if the wave to be contracted, then you will get longer range you want to detect while power limited equally.
    4) from 3), the contracted wave means higher frequency, the higher frequency, the higher quantum energy.
    —–Now we got power again, from the emitter to the wavelength.
    The Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)never to be called SAR RADAR whereas called SA-Radar if the Radar is sth you emphasize to, which relate to the way the wave you used to, not concerning variable energy.
    Therefor, it is the way to detect precisely, but range.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2330196
    emile
    Participant

    Aha. So “3D TVC” has nozzles moving in two dimensions, that enable the engine to direct platform forwards in any of three dimensions. That would seem logical. On the other hand, TVC means thrust vector control, and if you take X as thrust vector, all jet/rocket engines become “TVC”. X vector is controlled solely by engine power, with nozzle always standing at 0 deg Y and Z.

    Semantics 🙂

    What Austere questioned was also my worried.
    Strictly, if you have to put 2or3-D as prefix of nozzle, you shall say two-D or 3-D pitchable/pivotable nozzle

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2331836
    emile
    Participant

    No only can the F-35 carry the mentioned 2k JDAM

    Not for all version of F-35.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2333185
    emile
    Participant

    The answer is contained in an misinterpretation of rectangular nozzle which almost all of people here made and took it as an absolute advantage, but it’s vain.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2333277
    emile
    Participant

    not quite correct…first of all, these are not Paralay’s renderings

    second, look at this official (while quite old) schematics with lower half showing generic 5-gen engine with ejector TVC nozzle. Sukhoi was actively studying ejector nozzles on aircraft in mid of this decade AFAIK

    http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(73).JPG

    In any case, I will even put money on that Sukhoi won’t use rectangular nozzle, unless their brain doesn’t work well.

    in reply to: MiG-29 kontra F-16 (aerodynamics…) #2333545
    emile
    Participant

    There is no MiG-29 variant with such a combat radius around.

    Revised spine with large No.1 tank forward and new tank in rear part of fairing. Rear “tail” tank protrudes beyond jetpipers and can be retrofitted at unit level.
    In combination, tanks give 1475 kg(3252lb(1000 plus 475kg or 2205 plus 1047lb)) increas in capacity, equivalent to 100 per sent in mission radius to 836 nm(1550km;963miles) in air-superiority role, or 594 nm(1100km;683miles) in air-to-ground.

    ——JAWA 2012 Upgrated

    in reply to: Typhoons evenly matched with F-22's #2333625
    emile
    Participant

    Did you allude to Israeli F-16A Block 10s and Syrian MiG-23MFs?

    Yes, then what?

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2333627
    emile
    Participant

    No, the rectangular nozzle are inapplicable for any aspects you want.

    similar angle of PAKFA added

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2335384
    emile
    Participant

    Alssard’s MiG-23 downed by rebels, which kind of missile used by?

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2335443
    emile
    Participant

    Otherwise, apparently but uncertainly, a significant small turn radius than MiG-35 with obviously faster speed performed by PAKFA according to the video presented.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T2dz2tGQVI
    Around 2:20 we can see clearly the MiG-35 was trying to chase the PAk FA.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2335447
    emile
    Participant

    The inner surface of the engine nacelles are almost perpendicular to source radar at around 10 degrees below horizontal causing that upper spike seen on the polar diagram (indicated by the arrow).http://i.imgur.com/bRly1.jpg

    I’d like to see the entire diagram and what’s the way to estimate.
    Variant precondition and method will cause different consequence and misleading.

    in reply to: J-20 Thread 7 #2335449
    emile
    Participant

    Agreed, they/we know what does it should be I think either.

    in reply to: J-20 Thread 7 #2335536
    emile
    Participant

    I’d rather say that most Chinese military fans are deceived by themselves due to false weltanschaung

    in reply to: J-20 Thread 7 #2336232
    emile
    Participant

    Attached them.
    I did. I used values ranging from 2.9m (ASRAAM) to 3m (AIM-9X). Almost all value resulted in a length of around 22m or higher – Image.

    The distance remained between missile and BHD in your image is a little bit large now. However the interval set as 21~22 is legitimate.

    in reply to: J-20 Thread 7 #2336283
    emile
    Participant

    Here is the F-22 side bay with AIM-9L/M – Image-1, Image-2.

    Are you able to open the image you linked again?

    We don’t know what missile is going to be carried by the J-20 side bays and how. PL-8B is 2.95m, PL-9C is 2.9m and both have large control surfaces. AIM-9L/M is 2.85m. If the J-20 is going to carry PL-8B in its side bay, then you are right, the plane will be large, unusually large for a fighter. But, until they start loading the the missiles, we will have to weight.

    Check your data, this is an extremely simple arithmetical logic, which stands on my side.
    Primarily, I used AIM-9X as criteria to both.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 525 total)