dark light

aerospacetech

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 931 through 945 (of 1,127 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: ATF design — looking for better picture #2679896
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Might just be a scaled up version:

    in reply to: Current status of Mikoyan's MFI 1.44 demonstrator ??? #2679906
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The 1.42 was meant to use flat 2D nozzles but the required materials technology was beyond Russian capability. The ceramic tiles on the AL-41F are radar absorbent, and were the cause of some major problems in themselves.

    in reply to: Pulse Doppler radars vs Phased Arrays #2680897
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Well, a well designed passive phased array should have at least the same range as a planar array, as the transmitter etc are all identical (well-proven tech) and the antenna gain figures should be similar. Active phased array is different because it is lots of small transmitter/recievers chained together, so its new technology. I think that the Japanese F-2 array is said to be a little short of range. The introduction of LPI also implies reducing peak power output, which could reduce range. This isn’t specific to phased arrays though.

    in reply to: Light Multirole Fighter #2681942
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Ha!

    Your US interceptor stole the planform of my superior Russian fighter!

    in reply to: pic request: any Su-30MKK fully loaded pics #2681966
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    “Oh crap- here’s the Chinese delegation- quick, boys, change the engine intake covers”

    in reply to: Current status of Mikoyan's MFI 1.44 demonstrator ??? #2681994
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    The best comparison for the status of 1.44 within the 1.42 project is to think of it as the EAP in comparison to the EFA.

    In many respects, the 1.42 would have been comparable to the F-22 but I disagree with SOC about “stealth”. When the basic configuration of the 1.42 was being developed in 1986-89 I don’t think the USSR had the technical base to develop a real “Stealth” fighter. Hell, even the USAF wasn’t sure it was possible or desirable during the early stages of the ATF competition, and the stealth requirements weren’t very ambitious until the end of 1985 when they were substantially increased.

    Various comments by Mikoyan designers make me believe that the 1.42 was aimed at an RCS no better than 0.1 sq m. This is more in the range of a clean Eurofighter (0.1-0.25 sq m I believe) than the F-22 (RCS “smaller than a marble”), though the 1.42 would have the advantage of an internal weapons bay.

    The MFI was also intended to be multirole from an early stage, with a possible dedicated recce version.

    in reply to: Current status of Mikoyan's MFI 1.44 demonstrator ??? #2682489
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    I think SOC means 4 airframes…

    in reply to: Current status of Mikoyan's MFI 1.44 demonstrator ??? #2682519
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    I’ve not seen a reference to more than one prototype since before the official declassification. A full-scale mockup was built, plus the 1.44, but thats all.

    in reply to: Pulse Doppler radars vs Phased Arrays #2683153
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    All of those are pulse doppler radars…

    I think what you were meaning was mechanically scanned, planar array (flat plate) versus electronically phased array.

    in reply to: J-10 MASS Production Starts. #2683273
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Actually, with the JH-7 they ordered at least 3 Spey engines per airframe built, I believe, which is a 50% overorder.

    in reply to: Tu-95MS bombers destroy targets in exercise #2683288
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Kh-101 is said to have an RCS around 0.01 m2 – about 50 times smaller than the RCS of the Kh-55, which would reduce detection range at least by a factor of 2.66. While perhaps not true “stealth”, it goes beyond simple RCS reduction.

    in reply to: Current status of Mikoyan's MFI 1.44 demonstrator ??? #2683481
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Erm, well, when they starting building it in 1991 Mikoyan were hoping to get funding to finish the project. Funding slowed to a trickle, however, and although it made taxi runs in 1994 it was lacking crucial flight actuators for its canards. Its resurrection in 1999/2000 was little more than a PR exercise ahead of the LFI/PAK-FA program (“look, we made a new fighter too”).

    Testing of new engines or avionics are best done on testbed aircraft, not an unproven and unfinished prototype. The AL-41F was tested on a MiG-25 for the MFI program.

    in reply to: Current status of Mikoyan's MFI 1.44 demonstrator ??? #2683535
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    2 flights, very restricted, and no plans for more.

    in reply to: Tu-95MS bombers destroy targets in exercise #2684173
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    two modified Tu-95MS bombers

    Actually, the modifications were to support Kh-555 and Kh-101, so Vympel may be right…

    in reply to: Maybe WZ-10 picture !??! #2684181
    aerospacetech
    Participant

    Jpeg fringing. Its a small picture scaled up, and not the highest quality.

    Might still be fake but thats not an indicator.

Viewing 15 posts - 931 through 945 (of 1,127 total)