BronzeBuddha
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BronzeBuddha
-
-
The engine has been tested up to something close to 50000lbs thrust, but they're not cranking up to that for production. However, the capacity to add another 7000lbs thrust apparently exists. It could even be implemented as a software switch (note: The F-15 has such a thing).
I've read about the F135 being pushed to over 50,000 lb thrust, but I think that was a static test and it didn't have to drive the electrical generators (which are substantial on the F-35).
Otherwise I agree with your points. The one who gets first look has the biggest advantage.
-
Some people here have the misconception that the advanced avionics as seen on the F-35 can simply be grafted onto older aircraft like the Typhoon and thus negate the F-35's advantage. That's frankly untrue because these sensors need cooling, and internal sensors like those in the F-35 and F-22 are cooled by a liquid system specifically designed with the airframe. You also ignore the fact that avionics and software development takes just as much, if not more time and effort, as the airframe. In fact, this is a problem with the F-22 because even though it has the cooling and space for additional avionics like an IRST and side-looking AESA, its software and processors are too old and expensive to develop and upgrade.
Also, some people here seem to think that countermeasure effectiveness turns black into white. Modern SRAAMs with thrust vectoring and FPA sensors can recognize IR images and wreck just about anything if launched within good parameters. Short of DEW, your best bet is to flat out avoid WVR if you can.
-
Hummingbird, are you seriously trying to compare vortex strength and lift characteristics of low aspect ratio aircraft by eyeballing?
That is absurd.
-
1
-
-
So the load factor limit of the design is 15G.. which is quite nice I have to say :)
This means it can take at least 15G without getting damaged. So I would guess the real limit is more than that, possibly even over 20G? Maybe an aircraft engineer could shed some light on this...
No, 15 g is probably the ultimate structural limit, and acts as the buffer for a design g limit of 9. Structure rated for 20 g would be unnecessarily heavy. From what I've read about the F-16, its design g limit is 9, and structural limit is 13.5.
Side note regarding g, during flight testing an F-22 accidentally pulled negative 11 g during departure testing. After the plane landed they did a thorough inspection and found some warping. I think that aircraft is at a museum now.
-
According to Jo Asakura on Key Publishing forums, the starboard cowling isn't circular, which I'm not quite seeing.
-
USAF F-15E have been having accident with them since at least 1997
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140729-010.pdf
Further more
http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/technology/engines/101-engines
F-22 does not have a missile warning comparative to the one in the A-10 nether. Hell, the Raptor does not even have a JHMCS nor uses the AIM-9X, both of which are used by almost every other fighter aircraft in USAF. I think the F-35 does does have a comparative similar missile warning system.
No, the F-22 does have a missile warning system. It's AN/AAR-56 is actually the precursor to the F-35's EODAS. The F-35's system builds on the F-22 by having better reliability and IRST functionality and projecting the actual IR images into the pilot's helmet.
-
I thought the izdeliye 610 is the RVV-BD, unless that missile is the R-37M.
-
Another important point is this:
Flat dash intercept for 150nm is accomplished in 16+ minutes with an F-15C, but about 10.5 minutes with an F-22. The F-22 also arrives with fuel to spare.
What's the source? Because it's pretty amazing if true. That's an average of 980 mph or Mach 1.48 from takeoff.
Agreed. And apparently so does VVS. Same thing with some uninformed fanboyz either believing that T-50 will carry more than 6 missiles internally or act like they hold teh thruthz that it *does* carry more than 6. (with no proof to back it)To be clear, is it 4 izd.180 and 2 izd.760? Though out of curiosity, what is preventing them from putting 3 izd.180 in each main bay?
-
Out of curiosity, do the upgrades Eagles with EPAWSS and APG-63v3 have upgraded cockpits?
-
I've been hearing about this 2016 operational date, but it seems like 2016 is actually the date that the Russian Air Force gets the first production aircraft. So what is it?
Indian Air Force official says a lot of dumb sh!t. They are better to be ignored. It is amazing how people are just unable to use simple logic.Okay, I'll take note of that. Still, I'm somewhat doubtful of the radioscanner claim.
-
From radioscanners who are pretty legit.
Given that the T-50 has only started external weapons carriage tests earlier this year, I find the claim regarding the dummy weapons part to be rather suspect.
Also, considering that the Indian Air Force thinks that the current T-50 with Izd.117 engines are underpowered, I have a difficult time believing the speed claims. Remember, the new Izd.30 engines won't be out until almost 2020.
-
It is not a matter of thrust. It is a matter of compression shock going into the air duct at some point, i think.
I think what he's saying that the engines are powerful enough such that fixed inlet isn't the limiting factor when it comes to max speed.
Still, the T-50 will lightly be more efficient and have considerably longer range compared to the F-22, since it's fuel load is much bigger and it has variable inlets. Insiders also alluded to lighter empty weight and MTOW. It would appear that RCS and VLO is compromised to get these attributes. Like how the T-50 used straighter inlets + radar blocker and the perpendicular joints in the rear fuselage.
-
Lol. Well...i did not know that. I only ever bothered watching the flanker documentaries, but never looked up the eagle. :music_whistling:
But that is interesting to know with regards to lift provided by the inlets. How two different solutions can be provided for the same problem in two opposite nations.
F-15 fuselage lift provides enough lift to stabilize the plane with only one wing.
-
Here's F-15E with -220 engines.
-
Here's a video of an airshow by the old Su-35 with a weapons load. Seems quite impressive.
-
They're going to keep their V2s. Those were the test birds for upgrading to the v3. A v3 is an updated V2, but there's nothing wrong with a v2 ... no need to replace it.
Really? I was under the impression that the v3 is better than the v2 in just about every way, i.e. lighter, better T/R modules, more efficient, etc.
-
The Elmendorf birds have the v2 IIRC, everyone else is getting the v3.
I thought the Raytheon contract was for 179 v3 radars, so I'm not sure what's going to happen to the birds that already have the v2. Unless I read it wrong and it's 179 v2/v3 radars.
-
Which is a Different bloody plane.
That is why it is called SM. The SM also has a variety other qualities that places it well ahead of the regular Su-27S. They are not the same plane. The point being made was that you wont find a "S" with a N001VEP for example, unless designated "SM" etc.
Actually, the Su-27SM is a modernized Su-27S, and is remanufacturered from existing Su-27S/P airframes. I think some SM might have uprated engines.
However, there are some pretty big plans for the current fleet of 179 F-15Cs. Currently, the upgraded F-15C has the AN/APG-63v3, which is allegedly even more powerful (though perhaps not as sophisticated as) the F-22's AN/APG-77. It also has the AIM-9X and JHMCS combo with claimed 90 degrees off-boresight. Alternately, you also have the Israeli Python 5 missile.
I think future planned upgrades include the EPAWSS, which is supposed to be an EW, RWR and MLD combo that uses tech from the F-35, and updated mission computers. The Eagle might also be getting updated cockpit displays and an IRST, pending funding. Another thing on my personal wish list is the F100-PW-229 engines (29,000 lb class!!). Then add in the AIM-120C-7 or even the AIM-120D.
An Eagle with all of these upgrades would truly be a scary adversary.
-
AH-1Z uses a sidestick. Still looks damn cool though.
-
Energy loss in maneuvering on the Su-27 as of right now is not anywhere commiserate with the charts, or the real world. It's not simply ordnance drag, but of the entire airframe, and the wing loading versus applied thrust. Not only is weight a matter of delayed acceleration, but increased energy loss.
The reason this isn't a problem for the SFM is that these factors aren't working in combination. Throw the PFM at it, and you're going to have an airplane that won't fight like people expect it to, based on what they've seen from low-weight, zero ordnance demonstrations.
Folks are going to find out why airshows take place with two thousand pounds in the tank.
Well to be fair the old Su-35 demonstrated some pretty impressive maneuverability even with a weapons load. Videos below. Also, I don't think they would have as little as 2000 lbs of fuel in there, considering how much AB usage during an airshow routine. But of course it wouldn't be at full fuel (which, incidentally, is how much the F-22 carries in its airshows).
(loaded Su-30 demo)Also, from an old article.
Many wrongly believe that the Su-27+ cannot perform all maneovres in combat load. To counter such talk designer Mikhail Simonov, at the 1994 Farnborough airshow, sanctioned a Su-30MK to perform the airshow routine with ordnance on all 12 pylons - a total of 7000 kg!! It did a complete fighter-like routine with this asymmetric load - including a tail slide!!.Mikhail Simonov was stung by press criticism that this machine was appearing at airshows doing tail slides and Cobras without any underwing stores. So it was promptly fitted with a representative warload consisting of (from port wingtip) - AA-11, AA-11, AA-10, Kh-31P, 6 x OFAB-100-120 bombs on a MER fitted to the port lower intake, KAB-500KR on centreline pylon, Kh-29T on lower Stbd intake, Kh-59M, RVV-AE, AA-11, AA-11 and still did its full show routine!
Also consider thrse interviews by Mikhail Simonov, who was largely responsible for the Flanker design.
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html
(for the record, I don't believe Simonov's claims about the F-15's climb method)
-
According to the unofficial ED schedule thread, JHMCS for the F-15C is under consideration. If this actually makes it in along with the AIM-9X, wouldn't that be rather overpowered?
As a side note, might we see the AN/APG-63v3 AESA in the future? I can help but feel that such a setup would be unfair, even against an Su-27SM (provided they actually make the AMRAAM effective).
-
Which means you'll be pulling the handles all day from catching ordnance.
When the laws of physics actually get to catch up to the Flanker at combat weight, the level of complaining is going to be *awesome*...
Can you elaborate on this? Does the current Flanker flight model not simulate ordinance drag properly?
-
Okay, thank you.
-
When I'm trying to land, I can't extend my flaps down even when I press F or Crtl+F. As a result whenever I land I almost always have to get repaired afterwards due to excessive speed on touchdown.
Is there some kind of flight tutorial in the game? It seems like the current tutorials are a bunch of low quality videos from LOMAC.
The stealth capabilities of the T-50 PAK FA
in Military and Aviation
Posted
That's the diagram of the PAK FA radar blocker cross section leaked by an insider a few years ago. Allegedly that's just one section of the blocker, and the entire blocker (at the time of the drawing leak) is supposedly about as long as the diameter of the engine.
Radar blockers aren't even unique to the PAK FA. The F-18E/F has them and the F-22 has ceramic RAM blockers right before the nozzles to help with near quarter stealth.