Phaidis that Mig-27 or Mig-23 that was shot down? See video on cnn.com
any reports if it was shot down from the ground, or by Rafales?
The MiG-23 was the only fighter operated by the rebels, it was brought down by friendly fire.
PhaidAlso, Charles de Gaulle and the GAN are working up and will put to sea tomorrow (Sunday)
PhaidWatching the French ministry of Defense give a briefing on operations over Libya on BFM-TV
Approximately 20 French aircraft involved so far, starting at 1100 local time:
4 Rafales armed for CAP launched from St Dizier
2 Rafales doing recon, one equipped with RECO-NG and the other acting as escort
2 Mirage 2000D aremed for strike launched from Nancy, joined up with 2 M2000-5F from Dijon
2 Rafales armed for strike (AASM) launched from Dijon
6 flights of KC135FR from Avord
1 E-3F AWACS from Avord
According to the briefing, due to the clarity of the UN resolution and the fluidity of the situation, authority to fire has already been granted at the flight level. However as of now there have been no weapons released.
It’s too little, too late, but I guess good on France for stepping up.
PhaidThat’s inaccurate too: Top speed of F-35 isn’t even known, let alone certified for weapons release for whatever that top speed might end up being.
The F-35 is designed for a top speed of Mach 1.6 and is designed to be able to launch weapons at that speed. Lockheed press release
The supersonic milestone was achieved on the 30th flight of the F-35B known as BF-2. U.S. Marine Corps pilot Lt. Col. Matt Kelly climbed to 30,000 feet and accelerated to Mach 1.07 in the off-shore supersonic test track near Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Future testing will gradually expand the flight envelope out to the aircraft’s top speed of Mach 1.6, which the F-35 is designed to achieve with a full internal weapons load of more than 3,000 pounds. All F-35s are designed to launch internal missiles at maximum supersonic speed, as well as launch internal guided bombs supersonically.
Granted it has not reached that milestone in testing yet.
PhaidThe rebels have CLEARLY and repeatedly declared they did not want any foreign intervention, what else do you need in order to prevent you from sticking your nose into everything?
Have you just not been paying attention?
BAYDA, Libya—A rebel leader pleaded Saturday with the international community to approve a no-fly zone over Libya as Moammar Gadhafi’s forces gained strength in the east, securing a key port city and oil refinery.
Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the opposition’s interim governing council, also expressed disappointment over the failure to act by the United States and other Western countries, which have expressed solidarity with the rebels in their fight to oust Gadhafi but stopped short of approving any military action.
They obviously DO want military action on their behalf, specifically a no-fly zone established by the U.S. and its allies. It’s too late now for that to do them any good, but to claim that a no-fly zone is some kind of Western imperialist interventionalism is disingenuous at best. :rolleyes:
PhaidEstablishing a no-fly zone at this point would do nothing. The West did what it does best, hem and haw until the situation has degenerated to the point that debate is academic. The rebels are finished. The only way they could succeed now would be with the help of an all out air campaign against the Libyan government forces, and that is not going to happen.
The other Arab countries would have been in a much better position politically to take action. However, the leadership of most of the other Arab nations is not really interested in going and aiding in the overthrow of another dictator when they are busy trying to placate their own citizens. While the Arab League pay lip service to supporting a no-fly zone what they really want is for Gaddafi to crush the rebels quickly and have this all blow over.
PhaidThe J-20 is at least 75 feet long. The scale in these two pictures is slightly off, in that the F-22 is closer to the camera than the J-20, and even so the difference is obvious.
PhaidThe fence and the fairing on the dogtooth are part of the Transonic Flying Qualities Improvement (TFQI) package.
Everybody remembers the infamous wing-drop problem, which was fixed by software changes and making the fairing over the wing-fold “porous”. This fixed the wing drop problem but introduced buffeting at transonic speeds. The buffet was deemed acceptable for the E/F but was found to decrease accuracy of the wingtip ALQ-218 receivers on the G.
The TFQI changes the wing fold fairing back to a solid one, modifies the dogtooth and adds a wing fence. This fixes the wing drop just as well as the original fix but without the buffeting.
As far as all F/A-18Fs being “fitted for but not with” everything they need to be turned into EA-18G, that has never really been the case. There’s an additional 300lbs of wiring harness needed to accept the G equipment, plus the aforementioned changes. Certainly any Block II F/A-18F can be converted to an EA-18G, but without the wing mods and wiring harnesses it is not a flight line modification.
PhaidNo, sorry you are wrong there, a search on “4.24 1999” will give you exactly 4534 results. When you click on a relevant result, you get “not available”
This means that there exist no digital reccord of newspapers from that time. You will have to go to the library and ask to look at the microfilm(s), from the period.
Not true at all. I just had a look at two of the larger nationwide Norwegian papers, Dagbladet and aftenposten (links take you to the search pages I used) and had no problem finding articles from April 1999. Of course there are other Norwegian newspapers. So, what newspaper(s) is it you claim ran the article about the damaged stealth aircraft landing in Greece?
PhaidI am of course thinking of the Tejas. India has some of the finest software engineers in the world.
I agree with ppp here. India has a larger number of software engineers than most countries, but they aren’t especially good at it. Their main virtue (at least as far as outsourcing goes) is that they work cheap.
Isn’t there a pressure on the stores developers to offer “ease of inegration” i.e. some standardised API’s? If I could offer a product where the integration effort is far less than anything else, it could even negate some of the capabilities of the product (as has been seen in the civilian world. fantastic product, no API’s -> no market. Good enough product, ease of integration-> plenty of customers).
These things are about as standardized as it makes sense for them to be. The electrical connections are standard buses, the low levels of the communications are likewise standards for talking over those buses, so what you have left are the actual messages. As I said, generally the problem isn’t getting the aircraft to talk to the weapon, it’s getting the aircraft’s avionics to use the weapon’s capabilities, integrating the sensor’s data into the sensor-fused display, etc. There’s not much a stores developer could do to facilitate that without having prior knowledge of the details of the avionics system.
PhaidAh, this is http://pvo.guns.ru/combat/zaloga_kosovo.htm the link I was looking for.
In 1998, prior to the Kosovo air campaign, the Serbian arms export company Yugoimport-SDPR advertised a new upgrade package for the S-125 Pechora (SA-3) and Kvadrat (SA-6) missiles systems. This was widely ignored in the West. The upgrade included the addition of a thermal-imaging camera and laser rangefinder to the S-125 fire-control system to allow the missile to be launched without first acquiring the target using the usual RSN-125 (Low Blow) radar. Data can be fed to the system from other radars. As a result, traditional means of defense against this system were undermined since they rely on radar warning and traditional guidance sequences. The loss of the F-117 stealth strike aircraft has been attributed to this upgrade, combined with clever detection tactics and stereotyped NATO flight planning (see “Shrewd Tactics May Have Downed Stealth Fighter,” JED, June 1999). The Serbians apparently networked their air-defense radars and were able to provide altitude and location information to the Pechora battery to ambush the F-117 when it flew along a predictable flight path. The loss of the F-117 appears to have far more to do with complacency and poor tactics than with technology.
PhaidI have found following article ….
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html
As everyone with any sense already knows: Air Force assessors concluded, after conducting a formal postmortem, that a lucky combination of low-technology tactics, rapid learning, and astute improvisation had converged in one fleeting instant to enable an SA-3 not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode to down the aircraft.
The Serbs had upgraded their SA-3s with TV systems enabling command guidance without the use of radar. That combined with predictable routes, taking off from observed airfields, and possibly having been glimpsed on a search radar due to maneuvering in constrained airspace led to their being able to down the F-117. The F-117 was in any case not downed by a radar-guided weapon.
PhaidWell, re: weapons (and other external stores) integration. The weapon and the aircraft are separate computers that talk over a network, so the language, OS if any, etc, that they are coded in are totally independent of one another.
Communications between the aircraft’s stores management system and the external stores takes place via messaging over 1553 or 1760 interfaces. So it’s not an API as such, they use an ICD (interface control document) to document the protocol. Of course weapons integration requires a lot more work than just sending commands to the weapon, as the hard part is making the fire control system aware of the weapon and its operating parameters so it can properly cue the pilot and enforce envelope restrictions.
As far as further developments, sure, but the problem is much more than just developing a language. Ada is often described as having been “designed by committee” which is largely true. Defining the standards for it was as demanding as developing the language itself. It is a very costly and time consuming exercise, so there isn’t much motivation for doing it all over again. This is one of the reasons civilian systems, which don’t need to meet the kinds of rigorous standards like FAA or NSA or even FDA medical device standards, seem to evolve so much faster.
PhaidOh – I’m talking about the F-35 there. Probably shouldn’t have left that part out.
PhaidYes the 1st operational APG-77 only had 1500 modules but we don ‘t know what output power each module had .
The (V)1 version , as I said , seems to have 2000 modules rated at 4w each .
Did something get lost in the translation ? :confused:
Only your source seems to have been lost. I’m sure it was just an oversight on your part and you will straight away provide the evidence for these detailed claims. :rolleyes:
Yet, many of the advance features of the F-35’s APG-81 AESA Radar. Are to be incorporated into the F-22’s APG-77. 😎
Already have been incorporated and now in service. 😎
Sign In
