over Gtake the planes’ designers as a better source than the “friend” of an illiterate kid who posts on forums without every having read a book. Long live ignorance in that case…
well, that was a mistake from me, get into 3th persons in this discussion and forum was bad idea, forget about that, you can think what you want, but please make a little research about that, i wasnt ofensive with the “ignorant” word, im a very calm guy, im studing engineering , thats the reason why i always try to put a technical disscusion, anyway im very patient with the fans and my english 😀
“ooooohhhh is stealth”……fans :rolleyes:
over Gaaaahhh…..
well,well,well…., SOC, tell me which plane has the speed record, just tell me, other claims are just……claims, but the f12 could run faster???..perhaps -maybe not- but also it depends, if you are in light dive maneouvre and other conditions, but that dont mean that has better supersonic performance , even more speed -or even max peak speed- dont mean that :rolleyes: -only fans could think in that way-, the f12 needed more stabilization in the airframe by problems on high speed aerodesign, mainly by the nose shape
actually the interaction between the shockwaves in the airframe is a “clear problem in the design” as one friend told me.
now here we go with those experts books…. :rolleyes:
chine… now the underbelly of the airplane was flat, and the radar cross-section had magically decreased by an incredible 90%
:rolleyes: …90% in reduction of the RCS only by the nose design…even if would be only the local nose rcs that is still unbelievably,you believe that only if you want to believe or if you are a complet ignorant :rolleyes: about how works a plane, remember that sometimes even the designers are biased, i remember kelly jhonson defendeing the f104 or the lancer saying that would be muuuuch better than the f15 :rolleyes: -but that is also relative-, and im sure that in jhonson eyes the f104 was the best plane of its age :rolleyes:
that flat nose design was for speed stabilization, not for stealth, in aerodynamics there are thousands of examples of that, and i have explained the reason
the sr71 had RAM??, why not??, but it wasnt the nowdays advanced materials,and also cannot be operative at such high temperatures, anyway, is useless to reduce the rcs in a M3 plane because only the shockwaves do enough radar return, but again -as i said i, a very earlier post- it works together with the ECM, and any help -if its possible- is always welcome in the design
there is a myth arroun the blackbird that is still hard to beat, mainly by the lack of knowledge of the people,sadly most guys here love to waste money in those fans-books, yes isnt bad, but please analyse also some aerodynamic concepts
How about an ‘excuse me Sferrin’ Billy Bs.
Sens, you love that kind of ridicoulus phrases, not??, your behavior is like a 40s divorciated woman-or man :rolleyes:
over Gwell, the classic “religion or atheism” discussion.
there is a subjetive critic against the religion, with these crusaders and inquisitions….., but what if we compare the increase of power of the human being to destroy itself -like the nukes-, the technology is the responsible???……no, at the end isnt the religion or the tech, is only …..the human being
no matter how many “victories” could the science have against the religion, both deal with very different human aspects, the problem is when one try to deal with the others business :rolleyes:
the religion is organizated by churches, the churche is an common human institution, so the power corrupts it, all the big churches are corrupted, but if you give too much power they turn in monsters
the religion born in our or ignorance??? maybe, but i dont think that is a “ignorance product” the religion is more a social instinct, is part of our humanity, most people when says “religion suck” is because they dont like the churches, but in the end we always want to believe in something
not all in the humans are numbers and equations, actually if we would be so racionalist there wouldnt been technologic advances, the creative thinking is something that sometimes is above the knowledge
we need religion , because it give us “sensibility” in the morale-ethical dilemma, only saying “this is good/bad” isnt enough -at least in a society with generations of no-religion –
atheism is disbelieving god, or gods, but you can be an atheism with religion ,one that dont need gods or superior entities…i guess
nowdays science put limits on the human knowledge, the famous heisenberg uncertainty principle, so in nowdays principles, god could exist….
btw im not religious, i guess that have been 4-5 years in which i have not put a foot in to a catholic church -or any church- (wasnt so many years)
over Gwell, the classic “religion or atheism” discussion.
there is a subjetive critic against the religion, with these crusaders and inquisitions….., but what if we compare the increase of power of the human being to destroy itself -like the nukes-, the technology is the responsible???……no, at the end isnt the religion or the tech, is only …..the human being
no matter how many “victories” could the science have against the religion, both deal with very different human aspects, the problem is when one try to deal with the others business :rolleyes:
the religion is organizated by churches, the churche is an common human institution, so the power corrupts it, all the big churches are corrupted, but if you give too much power they turn in monsters
the religion born in our or ignorance??? maybe, but i dont think that is a “ignorance product” the religion is more a social instinct, is part of our humanity, most people when says “religion suck” is because they dont like the churches, but in the end we always want to believe in something
not all in the humans are numbers and equations, actually if we would be so racionalist there wouldnt been technologic advances, the creative thinking is something that sometimes is above the knowledge
we need religion , because it give us “sensibility” in the morale-ethical dilemma, only saying “this is good/bad” isnt enough -at least in a society with generations of no-religion –
atheism is disbelieving god, or gods, but you can be an atheism with religion ,one that dont need gods or superior entities…i guess
nowdays science put limits on the human knowledge, the famous heisenberg uncertainty principle, so in nowdays principles, god could exist….
btw im not religious, i guess that have been 4-5 years in which i have not put a foot in to a catholic church -or any church- (wasnt so many years)
over Gwell, first the 23 was always considered in the same level of the mirage f1 and the kfir, both much better than the f4e -now is obvious that the f4s fans will start with that “impossible the f4 was much better than any non-american plane”, that famous comparation with the f4 was with…….a trainer version
in bvr the f15 still holds the advantage, the radar is much better, but in ECM enviorement you must go into the dirty close combat, the 23s could have some advantages, like better g -against the A versions- limit and better sustainded turn at medium heights
More precisely, it can pull a few Gs over the Su 27 in supersonic
i really dont know the supersonic propieties of both planes, but i think that both are similar -unless you think in that 9gs supersonic crap-, anyway, whos talking about supersonic gs????
over Gwell, which plane has the speed record???, do you mean the f12 with the radar nose???, with dorsal fins???, you know how important is the stability in a M3 plane in inteligence missions?????
over GSorry, but if you think “ANY” verison of the Mig-23 is superior to a F-15A. Well, all I have to say is your smoking something………….as a matter of fact. Can I have some??? 😮
ahhh the puritans fans, some pilots had described the mig23mld with similar agility flight propieties with the f15c, the C, now for a puritan fanatic that could be impossible, but in a more serious analysis, the 23 could match the 15 sustained turna, and the 15 is obviously better in instantaneus turn, also that is relative in which speed and heigh you are flying
over G????, im not describing nothing, i just described how basic ECMs works, nothing more, at the end all that “special waveform” or “frecuency hopping” are based in interference and noise concepts, all that you need is the enemy radar frecuency, despite you would have codificated the singlal at the end is affected from one or other way, again, that isnt a holy grail, but it affects the missiles in one or another way, because in the end are just electronics, thats the reason why the US, russia, and other countries still spend money in ECM
over GI didn’t think you knew what you were talking about. Thanks for confirming it.
could you post a better argument than that???ECM affects the signals by interference ,electronic noise and in other ways, isnt the holy grail, but that combined with very movile targets will make to fail many missiles, actually nowdays missiles arent very precise against movile targets
over GOh great its OverG the world reknowned Stealth expert who clearly knows more about it than Lockheed
man just an example, the famous nose shape which everyone thinks that is a stealth feature, wasnt designed for stealth, was designed for supersonic handling, but that is the consumist nature, i mean in the 80s all said that low bypass turbofan suck, the delta wing has been satanised by some idiots – but dont admit that the f22 is a delta-, the canards also suck etc…
but man study some aerodynamics-mechanic concepts, and then “get real”, because in the aviation groups there are looooots of myths
over GThat’s why they were canted inboard 15 degrees, to reduce side-on reflectivity. Apparently the intakes were the biggest reflectors, at least from a frontal aspect.
you are sying that with those huge cone symetric shape intakes (even painted with ferropaint) that stuff would have only 1m2 RCS????….comon….
i guess that most people whe see the strange shape of the sr71 they say “its stealth”, but actually the shape and the later changes were for supersonic performance
over Gcalm down phantom,but what i say is true, the f15 fought against poor trained, supported, downgraded and almost without radar 21-23, the 25s interceptions were special operatives coordinated with SAMs with many f15s involved,also syrian 25s were mostly limited with the IR missiles and without irst, also the 25s hadnt modern radars, i respect the israel air force, but one thing is the air force and other is the fighter.
i dont remember well, but i guess that in the war also 15cs were flown by the IAF
over Gflex the 21UM is the trainer version, it has about 13º/sec inst with a 6 g limit, the other fighter versions has arround 7-8gs with a turn above 20º (well thats also relative with the corner velocity)
but modern mig21s arent good, due the older airframes
over GExactly. You said “IF the Raptor can hit 60 degrees AoA,” implying that you don’t believe it can.
Again, reading comprehension classes are inexpensive and plentiful. Check into it.
nahhhhhhhhhh………
that you don’t believe it can
:confused: SSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIINNNNNNNEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!! 😀 :rolleyes: 😀
over GTo do ECM well requires finessing the enemy emitter in a way that it doesn’t know its being finessed. This is extremely difficult to do without knowledge of how the enemy emitter processes signals. The ECM programmer can guess, but will never be sure he got it right. Such details are surely lost on the superior intellect.
is about basic energy process, you get an saturation of information, at the end if you have the frecuency, you can jamm that, by the refraction nature of the EMs and interference, no matter how can you process the info, you will get wrong info-or distortionated-and nearby the enemy ECM the signals are stronger and with more resolution than the shooter radar, also im not saying that ECM is the best -because it works partially-, but the combination of the bvr combat nature and the ECM push you to close combat, and thats why dogfight aerodesing is useful
Sign In
