dark light

aerospacetech

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 1,127 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Now…lets compare the R-73 against the Python-4 #2060870
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Vympel K-30

    krainian company shows
    dogfight missile control system
    Miroslav Gyürösi
    At the Aviasvit-XXI International Air Show held in Kiev on 14-18
    September, the Ukrainian State Kiev Design Bureau Luch showed
    the configuration of a new air-to-air dogfight missile, writes
    Miroslav Gyürösi. Known as ‘Izdeliye 611’ (Product 611), this is
    almost certainly the K-30 missile being developed by the Russian
    Vympel Federal State Unitary Enterprise State Engineering
    Design Bureau. If adopted, it would be designated R-30.
    The general configuration shown by Luch shows a weapon with
    vestigial long-chord wings, and trapezoidal tail surfaces, both arranged
    in a cruciform layout. The weapon is approximately 3.0m long and
    170mm in diameter. Wingspan is about 270mm, and the span of tailcontrol
    surfaces is about 470mm. Launch weight is about 105-110kg.
    Luch displayed the PR-611 servo-electric drive unit which is probably
    intended for the new missile. It has four actuators controlling four
    aerodynamic control surfaces, and two actuators probably intended to
    move a two-axis gimbal system for a single moveable nozzle.
    The first information to be released on the K-30 dogfight missile design
    was a leaflet published in the early 1990s by the Vympel design
    bureau. This proposed that the new missile would have a thrustvectoring
    nozzle made from erosion- and temperature-resistant carbon
    composite, and mounted in a gimbal system moved in two axes by
    control-system actuators operating via articulated joints. This
    arrangement would be more efficient than the control vanes used in
    the R-73, said Vympel. The PR-611 control section incorporates an
    array of four moving tabs. Although visually similar to the four thrustcontrol
    vanes used on the R-73, these may be part of an actuation
    system designed to move a single moving nozzle in order to vector the
    thrust.
    l Number of actuators – 6
    l Maximum tension on control surfaces – 30Nm
    l Control surfaces oscillation (cycles) area (zone) – 35 Hz
    l Control surfaces angular range – ±30º
    l Control surfaces angular velocity – 450º/sec
    l Diameter (calibre) – 170mm
    l Length – 300mm
    l Weight, complete with aerodynamic control surfaces – 10kg
    l Control – aerodynamic + thrust vectoring
    Comparison of thrust-vector control systems
    Main technical parameters control vanes gimballed nozzle
    Maximum side control power in each
    channel, (as a percentage of the rocket
    motor power output)
    13-14% 13-14%
    Maximum angle of control device
    movement
    17º 8.5º
    Maximum hinge moment 4kgm 3kgm
    Device weight (without actuators) 4kg 3.5kg
    Dimensions (without actuators) length 150mm 210mm
    diameter 165mm 165mm
    Rocket motor output loss when thrust
    is not vectored
    5% 3%
    The only hardware on display was this PR-611 servoelectric
    drive unit.
    (Source: Miroslav Gyürösi)
    This artist’s impression shows the general
    configuration of the new missile
    (Source: Miroslav Gyürösi)
    This poor-quality illustration shows the vectored nozzle
    proposed by Vympel
    (Source: Vympel via Miroslav Gyürösi)
    The K-30 ‘Izdeliye 611’ is about 3m long and is
    thought to weigh around 105-110kg
    (Source: Miroslav Gyürösi)

    in reply to: Best European Airpower #2669297
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    When those Tornadoes and Harriers are knocked out of the sky by Mirage-2000s there is nothing the RAF can do anymore

    Hmm. You DO know that Tornado F3 is a dedicated air/air version? Sure, its primary mission was anti-bomber, but its pretty potent in BVR engagements. Plus the MICA is relatively unproven compared to AMRAAM.

    in reply to: Best European Airpower #2669302
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    I think people are underestimating the Tornado F3 and its radar. It has greater range and TWS capability than RDI, for certain. I wouldn’t want to second guess the outcome against the Mirage 2000s.

    More importantly the UK has a much greater range of decent assets for bombing the other side…

    in reply to: Now…lets compare the R-73 against the Python-4 #2060886
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Please note that your statement is complete drivel, Gary. I take it that export MiG-29s carry 15% less fuel, have 15% shorter radar range, have 15% shorter range missiles with 15% smaller warheads…. Probably the pilots seat is 15% less comfortable.

    Yes, export versions can be less capable. So, for example, export radars often lack ECCM features. There is no way you can measurably decrease capability by a percentage.

    in reply to: Now…lets compare the R-73 against the Python-4 #2060906
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Harry, according to Vympel literature R-73E is +-45 degrees, R-74/R-73M is +-60 degrees.

    Where did you get 60 degrees for basic R-73E.

    in reply to: Now…lets compare the R-73 against the Python-4 #2060954
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    in service R-73s only had +-45deg off boresight. +-60 deg was the upgraded R-73M which wasn’t put into production AFAIK.

    in reply to: RIAT #2669603
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Can’t make RIAT, booked Farnborough ages ago, doesn’t look like a very interesting lineup at Farnborough though. I remember Farnborough 1988, that was great show 😉

    in reply to: Now…lets compare the R-73 against the Python-4 #2060963
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Umm, its not much of a matchup. R-73 is better compared to Python 3.

    The K-30 might make a better match for the Python 4/5.

    in reply to: Best European Airpower #2669942
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    #1= UK

    Not sure about the others 😉

    in reply to: USAF 5th generation figthers…old fashion design??? #2669970
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Well, we’ve dealt with stealth (you are wrong!) and IR signature (wrong again!), that leaves only “tail and TVC nozzles too close to the CG”. That’s hardly a major issue even if you are correct- its still going to have perfectly adequate control authority (moment = distance x force, and 70,000lbs of installed thrust is a lot of force 😉

    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Excellent news!

    I can stop trying to read Polish now 😉

    in reply to: USAF 5th generation figthers…old fashion design??? #2670453
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    If you think that Rafale/Typhoon are even remotely comparable in stealth to F-22, think again. Typhoon was quoted once as having an RCS 1/4 that of a Tornado. Thats Super Hornet territory, not F-22….

    aerospacetech
    Participant

    PiBu- so what exactly is in the two volumes? Is it anything like your Polish Lotnitwo Wojskowe Rosji?

    in reply to: USAF 5th generation figthers…old fashion design??? #2670680
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    but yes an modify eagle can perform in stealth as good as f22

    I’m afraid you are completely wrong here.

    in reply to: USAF 5th generation figthers…old fashion design??? #2670988
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Initial ATF studies circa 1983 envisioned reduced RCS of around 0.5 sq m. Partly because stealth was still secret, not many people knew how the F-117 had already achieved huge RCS reduction, and partly because it wasn’t clear if it was possible to make a stealthy, agile, supercruising fighter. By 1986, it was looking increasingly possible, and the requirement was increased.

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 1,127 total)