marcos

Except if you're at the top, then salaries are retarded. The small salaries fall in real terms every year. The large salaries go up by incomprehensible amounts like 50 and 100%.

Old(ish) news but the A-10 is getting the Scorpion HMIT (Helmet mounted Integrated Targeting) system. http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1601 http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Testimony/2011/April%202011/040111stenner.pdf

HMS Queen Elizabeth Photographed in Build | Royal Navy

Except a third of the weight and about half the length and diameter even without including the wingspan, and with MWR/INS/GPS/semi-active laser multi-mode guidance.

Irrelevant because full coverage IRST will see it by then. Furthermore even from outside normal aircraft-IRST detection range, in a real encounter where a missile is actually launched, the huge thermal spike will be detected and an optical system slaved to the IRST can then detect the offended aircraft and track it. A Meteor can then be launched with INS updates up to the point where it can lock itself. They won't though. Your idea of slipping past IRST and round the back is a crock of crap. 100deg is the actual offset at which the missile can lock. 100 deg either side is 200 in total. That's more than an entire hemisphere. With LOAL, strap down inertial and HMCS, you can also fire it at targets outside that scope and cue them with the helmet after they've turned to face the target. I'll say again, there is no sneaking up on an aircraft with IRST, ASRAAMs, LOAL and HMCS. You have more chance of sneaking up on a tiger. They have a small advantage yes but given the time deltas involved, kill probability, unfavourable odds and the thermal spike of a missile launch, it's not a sealed deal. And once WVR or within IRST ranges, the F-22 is stuck with bore-sight HUD cueing, crappy AAMs, a heavier aircraft, a lower TWR, a higher wing loading and worse roll response. Good? Yes. Invincible? No. 2:1? Yes. 6:1? No. The F-22 probably does have an advantage against SAMs but with SPEAR Cap 3, SAMs are covered. Future plans also include developing the Meteor into an ARM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor The F-22 will still likely see the Typhoon first (best guesses for IRST on stealth are 40-50km max. head-on) but it can be detected as soon as a large rocket plume hits the air from well beyond that. The problem is that the F-22 will have to enter IRST range to update the missiles even if it isn't detected at launch. Weapons like MICA IR, which could easily be incorporated onto the Typhoon platform have a range of 80km and also have INS strap-down. There will probably be 1000 Typhoons and Rafales globally before long. Then you have China and their liberal use of copy and paste with mass manufacturing. Well that was actually a guess based on AESA range divided by 3. If it can only detect a normal 1-10m^2 cross section at 30km, then on a 0.033-0.05m^2 RCS you're looking at 7-14km. It could well have a Meteor flying after it at ~Mach 5 whilst it's going though, after the AMRAAM rocket plume is detected and a slaved optical system automatically detects and tracks the offending aircraft and nearby aircraft. Of course you've also got the actual radar signal itself to detect too. Until you have a non-rocket boosted AAM with supercruise. You'll never truly have a stealth fighter. And maintenance costs? It won't need to be 6:1 anyway. 4:1 will do. But you won't be able to sneak up on it. I think too many people have said that in the past. Meh, SPEAR Cap 3 will be better, especially against moving targets. Faster, lighter, longer range, less chance of interception and will still kill an MBT as well as a Hellfire/Brimstone. It will essentially be a Brimstone with a turbojet engine. http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/spear_datasheet-1359561363.pdf And if you've got fighter trying to establish air-superiority, evade SAMs and provide CAS at the same time, how do you think that will go? And given how kill probability diminishes with range, there's a fair chance that things will progress to optical range, even if not visual range.

SPEAR looks like a good SEAD weapon:

Well you could use 10 EJ200s then I guess or design a modern version of the Olympus 593 and use 4 of them. The only way to achieve it with 4 current engines is probably the NK-32s or the Kolesov RD-36-51s from the Tu-144. I still think that the EJ200s would give better performance but using so many might be impractical. Interestingly, the thrust at cruise might not be as great as I thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolesov_RD-36-51 5400kgf < 12000lbf each So maybe 6 EJ200s would work. Highly theoretical here though. You really need to model your aircraft and find out how much drag you have at Mach 2.1.

Serious question though. Could the GPU-5A be mounted on the F-35 centreline (with a sturdier mount obviously)? Press '\' to bring up the radio menu and select 'SEAD'. Of course we always send in ground forces before SEAD and air superiority have been achieved. That way they can get bombed and we can try figure out who's who from the air whilst dog-fighting at the same time.

The faces are about 20m in diameter going by the scale on GE.

Wonder if this is the actual cockpit footage:

More Tejas MCA with Derby MRAA and Python 5 SRAAM with Astra Mk1 MRAAM SAR sensor for the subsonic long-range Nirbhay cruise missile

That's not quite right. There's also the RAMICS system, if it can be termed a pod. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/jen.pdf Aero India 2013 Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 : HTT-40 Brahmos II Rudra

GPU-5A???

Oh it will be paid back. You will notice that every $ you have becomes worth less and less until it is. Every $ the Fed prints makes every $ you own worth less.

During the Falklands we used an island for testing I think (ref. Vulcan raids)???? They were Mk83s - fairly big. Anyway back on topic: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/ http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/spear_datasheet-1359561363.pdf Basically a turbojet-powered Brimstone with ~130km range from what I can find. Nice SEAD weapon.

Looks similar to RAF Fylingdales:

Can't really help you there but if you're looking for a rule of thumb it's about 2/3rds that on reheat. So you could realistically look at getting about 66,000lbf from all 6 engines dry at 20,000ft and Mach 2.0. I'm going to guess that's not enough unless you design it to have a very good L/D. The Concorde probably had about 50% more than that and only carried 120 passengers. I think we've probably been underestimating the amount of thrust this feat will take. You might get around Mach 1.6 with that though, which would still be twice as fast as regular airliners and probably deliver more passenger miles/gallon than a Concorde. A slightly lower cruise speed would also reduce other design complexities. The Concorde's Mach 2+ wing design gave poor L/D as low speeds and the high alphas made landing complicated (the dipping nose). A design focused on Mach 1.6 would probably lessen those problems. You've also got things like skin friction and thermal cycling to consider, plus bird strike testing.

If I had a duplicate user account I could. Anyway. F-35As over Eglin http://www.youtube.com/user/LockheedMartinVideos

Buccaneer

China Nr. Bayingol

Fixed.:lol: Maybe that story was sourced from the same place the above one was sourced from. At the end of the day I can show Luftwaffe Typhoon pictures with many Raptor kills on a single aircraft. It doesn't necessarily mean they're better (obviously) but it casts serious doubt on the 1 Raptor vs 6 Typhoons fantasy. Next to that your stories stack up as little more than hearsay and tittle-tattle. I accept that they would get beaten in an even-odds contest BVR but the 1 vs 6 scenario win is pure fantasy.

Not if the radar is directable and used in conjunction with L-Band in the wing leading edges. And with more numerous data-linked fighters staggered horizontally, vertically and longitudinally, the coverage is good anyway. In the case of IRST you're wrong anyway, given that the ASRAAM, AIM-9X and Python 5 have 100deg off-boresight capabilities. IRST is almost a 360deg capability. In most cases it can be steered by the HMCS. You're also looking at this one-sidedly and assuming that a 4.5th gen fighter is just another 4th gen fighter. That couldn't be more from the truth. It isn't just because of manoeuvrability and avionics improvements they were deemed Gen 4.5. They have a remarkable reduction in RCS too. E.g. a Typhoon's RCS is 0.05m^2 vs 0.0005m^2 for a Raptor. Modern AESA will detect a Raptor at ~20km by conservative estimates. 100^(0.25) = 3.16. 3.16 * 20 = 63km. That doesn't provide an incredibly large cone. In fact it's only 10 times bigger than the opposing Gen 4.5 cone in terms of area of coverage at detectable ranges. Not mentioning issues about angular resolution and picking out one fighter from another at larger ranges, or actual missile radar abilities (probably a half that of the aircraft radar or less). Suddenly you have the fact that the missile radar can't self-lock until within 20-30km (i.e. IRST range) and 10 fighters at 20km can cover the same area as 1 Raptor at 63km (and better at closer ranges). With IRST, 1 fighter can cover the same area as several raptors at 30km. What if it only has narrow angle missiles or nothing to cue them with and they're outnumbered 6:1 (based on cost). It does if you're a taxpayer. It's like using Iron Dome to shoot down Katyusha rockets. It's a short-cut to bankruptcy. Because there are dedicated air superiority fighters for it. Obviously not no. In fact I don't think there's ever been an operational kill from that range, nor even quarter that range AFAIK. It will get close and personally and having better manoeuvrability, IRST, HMCS and low drag ASRAAMs with body-lift technology, it's clear where the advantage will be close in. Useful for taking off from helicopter carriers and platform but nobody can really argue that the Harrier is a benchmark for a $200m fighter.

Can't we use an island off Scotland or something? Or would the RSPCB try to bugger us for it?