Page 39 – Key Publishing

aerospacetech

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 571 through 585 (of 1,127 total)

← 1 2 3 … 38 39 40 … 74 75 76 →

Author

Posts
July 10, 2004 at 11:25 pm in reply to: USAF 5th generation figthers…old fashion design??? #2671302

aerospacetech
Participant

No, you are completely wrong about the F-22’s shape. The whole airframe is VERY MUCH shaped for low radar cross-section. Edges are aligned, intakes carefully designed, its wing shape optimised for stealth as well as aerodynamics. The tough front quarter RCS requirement was the main reason why canards were discarded early on by all competitors, as the canard/fuselage join was hard to make sufficiently stealthy.

It is a common misconception that because it doesn’t look like an F-117 there is no shaping in the F-22 design. The F-117 is faceted because it was the only way to make a shape whose RCS could be reasonably well calculated with late 70s computing power. With the F-22, curves could be calculated as well, which allowed much greater flexibility in terms of design.

RAM in Yurofigther and problem solved…

Absolutely not. Even advanced RAM cuts RCS no more that 10 times. For true stealth you need to cut RCS by 100 or 1000 times. Shaping is absolutely key here.

July 10, 2004 at 9:33 pm in reply to: USAF 5th generation figthers…old fashion design??? #2671361

aerospacetech
Participant

Welcome.

I think it was the Europeans, Russians and Chinese who made the “old-fashioned” design by not considering stealth as a primary design driver.

July 10, 2004 at 9:30 pm in reply to: Odd wingtip pods on MiG-31 #2671366

aerospacetech
Participant

A production MiG-31 (‘Red 79’) was converted into an ejection seat test-bed firing the experimental seats from the aft cockpit. Outwardly the aircraft differed from standard MiG-31s only in having cigar-shaped wingtip pods reminiscent of the ECM pods of the MiG-31M, albeit without fins; these housed cine cameras capturing the ejection sequence.

Other recognition features were black calibration markings on the air intakes and ‘noseart’ in the shape of a bald lion’s head. (A possible clue to the latter is that, in Russian, ‘bald lion’ is Lysyy Lev which abbreviates as LL -commonly used as an abbreviation for Letayuschchaya Laboratoriya – research aircraft,
flying laboratory or test-bed!)

The aircraft is employed mainly by the Akhtubinsk test centre. It was part of the static display at the MosAeroShow-92 at Zhukovsky in August 1992. In September 1995 ‘Red 79’ made a demonstration flight at Akhtubinsk, including a dramatic live seat firing on take-off as part of the celebrations to mark the Nil VVS’s 75th anniversary.

Oh well, one mystery solved 😉

July 10, 2004 at 2:18 pm in reply to: Questions about the AA-10 Alamo #2061241

aerospacetech
Participant

So why create the ET version at all? And why should any airforce buy this kit? What will the numbers be like in pursuit mode?

The ET version is highly useful in tail-on engagements. The R-27 base version has a range of 35km head on, but tail on its only 18km, limited by the engine, not the seeker. The E models boost tail-on range considerably, to around 40-45km.

The Su-27’s radar has trouble detecting much past 40km in tailchase against a fighter, so IR is a good seeker to choose for tail-on engagements. You’ll probably have a nice juicy afterburner or two, and locking on at 40-45km or so would be no problem. So- you would use R-27ER in head-on engagements, and R-27ET in tail-on ones.

Incidently, the same confusion affects R-73 range figures. The HEAD-ON range is quoted as often quoted as 30km, and certain Western analysts have spouted forth on how it has a great range advantage over AIM-9. Yet, the seeker head in reality has trouble exceeding 8-10km head-on against a head-on fighter class target. In tail-on engagements, the seeker range can increase substantially, but the missile’s achievable range will probably be more like 15km.

July 9, 2004 at 9:50 pm in reply to: about novator 172 A2A? is it for real? #2061321

aerospacetech
Participant

No that looks like Brahmos to me.

This is KS-172.

July 9, 2004 at 9:13 pm in reply to: about novator 172 A2A? is it for real? #2061337

aerospacetech
Participant

Novator’s KS-172 is a real project. Its based around the 9M83 missile from the S-300V SAM. It was shown in the early 90s.

It seems to have lost to R-37M for Russian purposes, and vanished for a while. Recently its been resurrected, in a slightly different form, and seems to be a joint project with India along the Brahmos model. Range of the export version is said to be 300km.

July 8, 2004 at 1:33 am in reply to: Bell asked to come up with a tilt-rotor gunship to escort V-22s #2673666

aerospacetech
Participant

I think something like this Kamov V-100 is in order 😉

July 7, 2004 at 7:12 am in reply to: Thales Radars RDY2 and RBE2 #2674126

aerospacetech
Participant

But a non-LPI radar is a huge tactical disadvantage, as RWRs will pick up your signal further away than you can see the enemy plane.

July 6, 2004 at 9:48 am in reply to: Questions about the AA-10 Alamo #2061571

aerospacetech
Participant

You can think that all you like Garry, the truth is only the not-in-service R-27EM used a lofted profile.

All basic R-27 models head directly for the target. Note that ONLY the radar homing versions use inertial + midcourse guidance. This was not some “killer idea” from the Russians but the only solution to their inability to get decent range from their radar/SARH seeker combination to match or hopefully outrange Sparrow.

The IR versions don’t have inertial/midcourse guidance, they are Lock-On-Before-Launch (LOBL) only. This means that R-27ET has a range of 66km, but only if the aircraft is detectable HEAD ON at 66km using the R-27ET seeker which is unlikely unless you are aiming at the sun 🙂

July 6, 2004 at 7:06 am in reply to: Remember Mi-24VM? #2675033

aerospacetech
Participant

Its a civil version intended for:

http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA42/index.htm

an Austrian plane.

July 6, 2004 at 6:57 am in reply to: Questions about the AA-10 Alamo #2061590

aerospacetech
Participant

No, the R-27 does NOT use a lofted profile. The R-27EM did, which is how its range increased.

The actual real engagement ranges, taken from an Su-27 combat employment manual, are:

Speed of Su-27 1100km/h
Target speed 900km/h
Head-on course
height 10,000m

R -27ER, R -27ET, R -27EP – 66 km.
R -27R – 35 km.
R -27T, R -27P – 30 km.

The R-77 range under the same conditions is about 50km.

July 5, 2004 at 5:35 pm in reply to: Remember Mi-24VM? #2675639

aerospacetech
Participant

I think this looks conclusive – GOES 520 it is.

July 5, 2004 at 1:09 pm in reply to: Remember Mi-24VM? #2675770

aerospacetech
Participant

I have the full thing- I found it in my downloads folder. Might upload it later. For now, I’ve posted the relevant pages

July 5, 2004 at 1:05 pm in reply to: Remember Mi-24VM? #2675775

aerospacetech
Participant

http://www.overscan.co.nz/aerospace_eng.pdf

July 5, 2004 at 11:26 am in reply to: Remember Mi-24VM? #2675834

aerospacetech
Participant

No problem I have my own email server plus ADSL connection.

I’m moving to NZ in a few years so I’m taking full advantage of unlimited bandwidth 😉
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 571 through 585 (of 1,127 total)

← 1 2 3 … 38 39 40 … 74 75 76 →