over GWonder if the f-16/18 are actually means of pressure to get better deals from the starving Mig -and i think is working-…wonder how will be the situation when mig gets fusioned with the aerospace conglomerate
Seems that in Aeroindia 2007 the mig-35 outperformed the other planes, and in this one , seems it got nice coments, while for the F-16/18 is not said anything exceptional
Nothing about the Rafale?
Did the indians flew the EF or the Gripen?
I to have my doubts about the N-LCA. The landbased LCA MK2 as a Mig-21 replacement is one thing. Yet, the N-LCA would be as you said very limited in the Naval Role. Personally, if I were India I could find much better places to use the resources than to waste them on the development of the N-LCA…..IMHO
Well, since they got the airframe, the controls, and well the engine is underway…the NLCA is worth the try, still a long way to go, but is better than realise they needed a national naval plane after 5-10 years
over GIt is absolutely useless and dangerous to use an OS to manage FBW/FBL and FCS , a standard micro-controller is much more adapted and safer to handle those things. Also I really doubt that Dassault/EADS/LM/Saab or what ever aircraft designer will use a proprietary software with a code they can’t really know exactly how it works, and this is important/critical for an airplane to get a program with a known behavior with a very documented source code.
Agree, that is why i was a bit surprised by that software issue news, something that can easely be misinterpreted as a real problem for the FBW or critical systems on the plane
over GFor combat missions i will be a surprise to find more than 5 tons of combat ordenance…i don’t know how are the mrca requirements, but i doubt is above that number, so…
The LCA is showing some disappointments, it airframe stress limit was reduced from 9 to 8 gs, i don’t think this have something to do with the airframe life cycle, because such measures are taken after the plane is done, the new 8g is a technical design goal, probably more related due the increase of weight (and related structural issues) rather than an engine issue , althought it would be a slight increase of mass, but showing the tight tolerances on the project, would like to know how much money has been spent on it (and perhaps to compare ti with the mrca adqitition cost)..a medium weight Tejas, would be more troublesome..
The aesa-naval29 deal is linked with the mig35 deal?, and what is the empty weight of the mig-35, there is that 14 tons number floating arround, but that value seems more like the normal take off value, with is more/less comparing with the more voluminous mig-29sm (15tons)
But i agree with Abhimanyu, in general is better to have your own fighter than to depend on foreing countries
By the way,what systems on the gripen were or are developed by Tales?
over GI agree about all that is said above, the companies send to the “TsAGI” their ideas and concepts, the “TsAGI” refine them until you get the final configuration
But , then i doubt Su sent a boxy “su-27”, aren’t you talking about the pre-studies before sending the final concept to the aerodynamic department?
I don’t know id Sukhoi have wind tunnels, i think both Su and Mig aerodynamic research is limited to water tanks and small tunnels..or i’m wrong
over GI’m surprised at SOC…… but not….:rolleyes:
Sukhoi created two rival design teams – one with a ‘conventional’ (ie F-15 like) layout, the other team created various blended/lifting body designs.
TsAGI, being ultra conservative, favoured the conventional layout – Sukhoi had to fight them tooth-and-nail to get the blended layout accepted.
It was not mig who supported the delta/box configuration?, if i recall well it was some sort of mig-31
Any picture of the box/delta sukhoi?
over GWonder, if the new mig projects (aside if will be finished or not) will be based in the common design the aerodynamic departament gave to sukhoi…
In general both companies built the same basic design, but in differnt sizes and requirements, mig-21/su-9/su-7, mig-23/su-24 mig-29/su-27/su-34, the su-17 is considered a further development from the su-7, and the su-15 is a further development from the su-9 ,of course we have the mig-31/25, but then, that was a special case.
I think the russian process to create an airplane goes like this, the general idea and concept, are given by the companies (different ideas and concepts), then they send their ideas to the central aerodynamic departament (or they can pick a configuration from previous researchs), given the configuration they start with the structural design, controls, weight distribution etc, etc, ect..and finish the project, then a bureaucrat (?) pick the best design/idea and select the companies to produce the aircraft in that configuration…i might be wrong, of course
Seems that neither, Su or Mig had a common design in the 90’s,the su-47 can be considered as some of these mutant research (like the ye8), with a specific performance, it was designed for the navy, and clearly the wing had nice performance for low speed flight, and high lift for heavy ordenances…maybe designed for the carriers?,then we have the 144, i dont think there was a blueprint of the mig144 in the Sukhoi offices, which i think confirms the nature of the mig144 as a pure testbed, or perhapps it was the mig-31 replacement?(since i doubt the russians would have replace the 20-30 tons mig-31 with a whooping 40-60 tons 7.01) also in general mig build light front-fight fighters, the only heavy aircraft was the foxbat…the only one, but then who knows.. the story about these planes still has a lot of inconsistences
Is interesting how the mig-29 was left aside, while the mig-31 operativity seems more important, if the su-27s will get most likely upgrated Irbis radars, will be the 31s equipped with similar radars?
over GWhich systems use Windows? (just the interface?, or including the flight controls?), is that real or a joke, Rafale use a comercial interface software? ( or a civilian based one)
The inputs from the FBW goes through windows?, or this one just control the display data?
over GOk, i was about to get deeper about this issue, but better not, i think will be useless, you guys have your opinion, i respect it
Regards
EDIT: actually the 20% PK is not for BVR combat, the PK is even lower, since most of the successful hits of medium range missiles were done in visual range
over GStill living in the past, are you? It’s no longer 1972 and we’re not discussing Alpha strikes against North Vietnam.
Realistic, with the facts, BVR missiles still are far for being precise, on excercices the common kill range is 20km with a base kill probability (optimist) of 50%, add it the maneuovres, and ecm..
In real war time, the hit probability is below 20%, that against poor adversaries, numerical superiority, better supporting, etc..
No the air combat is not a video game
BVR combat, stealth and UAVs have such a incredible marketing campaing, that most ppl here will be very disappointed with the facts
over GTo me all that “report” seems a counter campaign against the Australian criticrism, which is also subjetive, seriously, the aircraft is on their early stage of testings, dont even know if inflight RCS testings were done…right now they are testing the flight performance, the weight issues, and the engine problems….
For the RCS of both (f-22 and f-35) 0.000x rcs is quite unrealistic, seems you guys are living from video games, is easy to fall in such claims…0.1m2 to 1m2 should be the accurate number, all the modern aircraft RCS claims are just a big marketing joke
And for the “but that was not done with the amraam-d” comment…well that is an old argument…BVR is an old tale, which always try to evade the reallity with the “but they did not use the new missile”, 30 years saying the same
4 missiles are just not enough for BVR, let see if they will increase the number of missiles carried, but with four you wont get 1 hit
over GAs far as I know the F-5 was never tested with dorsal or ventral intakes. The only dorsal intake I can think of on an American aircraft is the one on the YF-107.
A nuclear exchange isn’t very likely between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but that doesn’t mean that an Iranian bomb won’t force Saudi Arabia to acquire their own deterrent capability.
Well ,yes, the “f5” im refering is from iran
Any background about this picture?, it seems it come from irani official sources, then again, we can see the dorsal intakes, while the design does not seem exceptionally “stealthy”, dorsal intakes are a LO feature, since they tends to direct the engine returns upwards, but then there are other reasons for such layout
This picture is new for me, but it seems is a bit old already
over GWhat nobody is talking about is that a nuclear Iran may likely result in a third Middle Eastern nuclear power: Saudi Arabia.
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2009/02/saudi-arabias-ballistic-missile-force.html
Read through some of the links at the bottom of that piece, as well as the bit on Saudi nuclear intentions. If Iran does go nuclear, as is its right if you ask me, things could become very interesting.
Interesting ..you should understand that Saudi Arabia and their wahabism is the source of international “terrorism”…against the US
Iran/Saudi Arabia mantain certain rivalities, but then it was always an underground fight, never was a direct one…i don’t think that will ever change, a nuclear exchange is many thousand times more probable between India and Pakistan, than Iran / SA
Wonder will be interesting….for whom
*********
Please if someon can tell me if f5s were tested with dorsal intakes?
over GI would understand your fears, years of cowboy/terrorist movies…i suposse
If Iran final goal is looking for nukes or not, we dont know, we will see, but the nukes themselves are, in this times and the future, the Iran salvation card
Over G dreaming of an Idealistic Socialistic world where every nation has nukes.
Pragmatism, again who would dear to invade a nuclear country?
over GNo, the Iran has not. The Iran did sign and ratify a treaty with the UN about that. As long as that is in force, that Iran is not allowed to develop nuclear weapons. See the IAEA about that. When some posters here are less informed about that, the Iranian government is for sure. By the way it did start negotiation about their “civil” atomic program to avoid severe sanctions by the UN. 😉
They can quit, where is the big deal?, so any nation that quit such ephimere treaties should be bombed?
Iran has no other choice than develop their nuclear weapons, is far more probable a bombing over a non nuclear Iran…than with a nuclear one
The US would have invaded pakistan long way ago, if they didnt have nuclear bombs
over GOh, I would have to strongly disagree in regards to the Avenger 30mm Cannon. As its highly effective and is a great back up after all of the other weapons have been expended………………As a matter of fact I don’t believe the most modern of MBT’s. Could survive 50 rounds of 30mm from a A-10’s Gun!
One problem is that those 50 rounds are droped in a big area, the another one, is that the penetration is jut 30 mm at 1000 m, if we take the typical dive angle over the target (30º) we must to multiplicate the 30mm to 0.6, giving a penetration of just 18-17 mm, at 30º the plane must be at 600m of the ground! too easy for mandpads and AAA, really too easy
The gun is nice for cleared targets without any kind of treat
you still have to have the same total weight in the same places for the aircraft to fly correctly.
yes, lets not forget about the density of the weapon and the load, i mean if you put , lets say more electronics, it could not have the same weight per m3 as the gun, so you would end just putting dead weight, or more armor (wich would carry more structural issues fitting it)
Sign In
