dark light

pigeonracer

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 14 posts - 136 through 149 (of 149 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • pigeonracer
    Participant

    :rolleyes:

    I’ve yet to hear of program members/buying nations/partners voicing concerns over problems. Of course maybe I’m way out of touch but can you point me to any sources of concern from interested parties/partners?

    pigeonracer
    Participant

    You got it wrong.

    The new FCS software are controlling the TVC too on the Su-35 BM!

    Just like u decribe, but its not just another controll surface!
    Its ontop on everything else, get it?
    Its like Sukhoi test pilot Sergei Bogdan describe here:

    Capish?
    Pls don’t do the “this is a probeganda crap..
    All sources i have seen on that new FCS on the Su-35 BM are greatly improved!
    Many people don’t take this improvment in..
    Thanks

    Isn’t the use of TV in supersonic flight more to simply trim the aircraft rather than help it do stunts? I don’t see anything where it claims the TV is “on top” of everything else in the article you quoted either.

    pigeonracer
    Participant

    If you can’t help yourself, pls put in some link to other reliable sources of your claims!

    Thanks

    There is actually to many posts to link to that say Mr beesley is not to be trusted. For the benifit of others; simply type the word ‘Beesley’ into the sites built in search function, select view by post and read through the posts, you will see many “he’s on the payroll” posts. I have linked to it also. The evidence is indisputable but this is the last I shall say on the matter.

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/search.php?searchid=2056608

    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Yeah right.
    Never mind the evil lying corrupted Sukhoi employees!

    And always thrust the LM/UsAF employees for their outright justified thruth!:rolleyes:

    Thanks

    I guess you missed the threads in question, the general gist of it was never ever trust a test pilots word according to many. I don’t see why this shouldn’t apply in this situation.

    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Well flown Mirage 2000 and MiG-31s would have decimated Tomcats much easier and quicker.

    In your opinion, not in others (I don’t share that opinion)
    We will never know either way anyway.

    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Here is some additional comment on the Su-35 TVC ,
    from Sukhoi test pilot Sergei Bogdan:

    Sukhoi pilot Sergei Bogdan underscores the benefits of vectored thrust at slow speeds. “We can fly slow, keeping a high angular speed during a bank. Inertial forces try to increase the angle of attack when the airplane rotates with the ailerons, but we use vectored thrust to create a compensating force generating a pitch-down motion,” he explains. “Thereby we keep the angle of attack under control. In the end, the airplane remains controllable in a much wider flight envelope. Besides, it can demonstrate faster angular speed in bank.”
    Thrust vector control provides a maneuvering advantage in air combat, with the pilot having the ability to get the enemy in sight faster than its opponent to shoot first.
    Bogdan acknowledges, however, that air-to-air combat is more and more rare, leading to some skepticism within military circles about the value of investing in thrust vector control.
    Admittedly, thrust vectoring is not only useful at low speeds.
    A small nozzle deflection helps in supersonic flight as well and it also can provide stand-by control functions in case of failure with the primary flight controls.

    For air combat involving long-range missile engagements, the Su-35’s high climb and acceleration rates, plus super cruise regime, modern missiles and extended-range electronically-scanned radar are considered as clear advantages for the new Russian-developed fighter.
    The aircraft’s Irbis-E radar, developed by the V.V. Tikhomirov Scientific-Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP), is a follow-on to the Su-30MKI’s N-011M Bars radar.
    By combining “something old, something new,” Sukhoi hopes to be able to offer the Russian military and overseas customers a highly capable combat jet with good “out of the box” reliability from its entry into service.”

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85695

    Thanks

    He’s paid by Sukhoi, I don’t believe a word he says. Remember Mr Beesley, thats right, according to many hear (you know who you are and so do others) that test pilot comments are nothing but propaganda of the worst sort and are pretty much outright lies. :rolleyes:

    pigeonracer
    Participant

    The ESM system alone isnt good enough for a firing fix either,

    I think you might be suprised, I’m sure you know what i mean.

    in reply to: Red Eagles: book opinion? #2435264
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    they sent his best pilots to comb wrecks for spares, from behind the “Wall”…

    I would find it most unlikely the actual USAF elite pilots were spending days going over a crash site possibly measuring hundreds of square metres with a fine tooth comb looking for debris, much more likely paid locals or low level agents but i’m not in the spy game so I wouldn’t know. Perhaps Steve could clarify for us.

    in reply to: Russia Shot Down Its Own Planes? #2435373
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    You realise off course that there was pretty heavy ground fighting going on??

    Nato aircraft were unable (not from a lack of trying) to prevent Yugoslav ground units from completely removing the KLA from Kosovo.

    But at the end of the day the end result was the Serbs folded up and admitted defeat, pretty much through air power alone. They couldn’t stop the attacks and wisely choose to back down. People need to face facts, they lost badly.

    in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2028709
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    But not from spy satellites or reconnaissance aircraft.

    You’d be suprised how hard that is, it’s not a straightforward and easy task, think about it abit…

    in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2028749
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    You mean the stupid scenario where the USN exploits its decades of training and experience in deceptive manoeuver warfare?. No….they are of course far more likely to steam in with every emitter going full blast so that legacy opposing systems can track, identify and engage them!. How dare they do otherwise….it would be unthinkable surely!.

    Extremely well put!
    It would seem many people really don’t realize just how big the ocean is and how well you can hide an entire CSG if you use the right methods.

    in reply to: Israel submits LOR for F-35 #2435452
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Make it $120+ million. All these then year dollar, FRP and other figures are only aimed at confusing the potential buyers so that the aircraft appear affordable until they (buyers) get the REAL check to pay. 😎

    Call me cynical but I’m not to sure its that easy to hoodwink enire nations defence establishments, though it would be a massive embarrassment and rather amsuing to see those who fell for it though if it were to be true but like I say I doubt this is the case at all, no nation could be stupid enough to fall for it.

    in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2028835
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html
    http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Regional-ASCM.html

    Sunburn, Sizzler and Yakhont anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles would spell the end of the Nimitz class supercarriers.

    Unless the supercarriers and all surface warships were armed with railguns.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

    I am not to sure a railgun is a very clever idea to use as an ASM defence weapon. The USN, as far as I know, is only pursuing the idea of railguns for land attack, in other words as an artillary piece and not as an ASM defence as (I think) the picture you posted demonstrates.
    I do not know of any other nations researching railgun technology for use as an anti missile system either, but i could be wrong of course.

    in reply to: Russia Shot Down Its Own Planes? #2435463
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    The Serbian AD was unable to prevent NATO air activity over Serbia nor fend-off a single attack on a choosen target= close to zero capacity.

    This is the fact that many do not realise. It is a fact that cannot be emphasised enough when discussing the air campaign in question.

Viewing 14 posts - 136 through 149 (of 149 total)