dark light

aerospacetech

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 541 through 555 (of 1,127 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: New Mikoyan light fighter info #2661204
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    How about a competition to design an upgraded MiG-29? I have some ideas…

    in reply to: New Mikoyan light fighter info #2661213
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    I read that Mikoyan are tooling up to resume MiG-29 production. It would make sense to “Super Hornet” the design to compete on the world market.

    The MiG-35 design above had vastly increased internal fuel.

    in reply to: New Mikoyan light fighter info #2661380
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Well there was such a project before.. MiG-35…

    in reply to: India's MiG-29K engines: RD-33MK #2662129
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    oops

    wrong place

    in reply to: India's MiG-29K engines: RD-33MK #2662140
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Back to topic.

    “What is the difference between the navalised RD-33 and its baseline model?”
    The RD-33’s navalised version – the RD-33MK – requires an enhanced takeoff thrust. Therefore, firstly, we have upgraded its fan by increasing airflow by 7%, thus increasing thrust up to 9,000kg instead of the 8,300kg produced by the baseline model. Second, we somewhat raised the turbine inlet temperature. As far as substantial modifications are concerned, that’s it. This derivative has been made and its operating integrity has been tested.”

    Air Fleet 45 (3/2004)

    in reply to: India's MiG-29K engines: RD-33MK #2664748
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Hmmm I guess you are aware that the -29K has greatly increased internal fuel capacity?

    in reply to: Russian missile names #2060453
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    “Buk” = Beech (a tree)
    “Bazalt” = Basalt (type of rock)
    “Granat” = Granite (type of rock)
    “Igla” = Needle

    in reply to: What's wrong with this? #2666731
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Well- it also obstructs rear view to some degree. No FOD problems, however πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: What's wrong with this? #2666754
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Maybe blow in doors on the underside would compensate during high alpha flight.

    in reply to: Tomahawk equivalent #2060614
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Well what about the Russian S-10 Granat (NATO SS-N-21 Sampson), which is near as dammit a clone of the Tomahawk?

    in reply to: farnborough 2004 #2667344
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    I’ll be there but the lineup is pretty poor in my opinion. I bought the tickets months ago…

    Still, will take my digital camera. Last time I went to Farnborough was 1994 I think, when I shook hands with a couple of Mikoyan designers courtesy of Jon Lake. Maybe if PiBu goes he’ll sign one of my books πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: Historical question on Tornado #2667882
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The F-15 was considered for the ADV role but its radar judged insufficiently long ranged. The F-14 met the requirements but too expensive.

    in reply to: PAF purchases 7 Erieyes #2668099
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    During their talk on Tuesday, Musharraf and Freivalds also discussed increasing trade between their two countries. She insisted that Sweden would not consider selling weapons to Pakistan. β€œThere is no question of selling them weapons or anything directly related to weapons today,” she said, adding that the government had yet to decide whether the Erieye radar system would be considered a weapon. β€œWe have yet to reach that stage” in the negotiations, she said. afp

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-7-2004_pg7_35

    in reply to: PAF purchases 7 Erieyes #2668106
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Harry, don’t spoil the dreams of the Pakistani posters πŸ˜‰

    We can talk about Erieye anyway, seems like a nice little system.

    in reply to: PAF purchases 7 Erieyes #2668227
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Four of the aircraft are fitted with the Ericsson PS-890 Erieye side looking phased array radar, with 200 solid-state modules mounted in a long narrow, non-rotating, antenna above the fuselage. From its operational altitude of 20,000ft, the Erieye S-band, frequency agile pulse Doppler 3 GHz radar has a range of 300-400km (200+nm) against fighter sized targets, including against clutter and also has a sea surveillance mode. The ‘look’ angle on each side is about 120 degrees, leaving the two 60 degree sectors of the nose and tail uncovered. One great advantage of using an electronically scanned antenna is that particular sectors containing targets can be scanned frequently, whilst the radar continues to monitor the other sectors. In addition, single sectors of interest can be scanned in different modes at the same time. The aircraft can remain on station 180km from its base for 8 hours.

    The Argus can be fitted with four multifunction workstations for airborne controllers. However, in service with the Swedish Air Force the aircraft does not carry controllers, instead the onboard automated systems datalinks the information the radar receives to ground stations, which in turn can transmit commands back to the aircraft. In this configuration, the Argus functions as a highly efficient airborne radar and is completely integrated with the Swedish Air Defence system (StriC-90). Delivery of the six aircraft to the Swedish Air Force took place between 1997 and 1999 and the aircraft are operated by F16M at Malmslatt.

    http://www.spyflight.co.uk/SAAB%20Argus.htm

    So both sides are correct πŸ˜‰

Viewing 15 posts - 541 through 555 (of 1,127 total)