Wilde

Naming an aircraft "Ikarus". Way to motivate your pilots... :doh:

Where did you find it? And how do you know it was PIRATE shooting that picture?

or Limpy Pig? Only making "wilde" guesses. But you are asking for the nickname of that very plane, right?

Plough? :D

I doubt the Brazilians care much about that. The Russians are out of contention, because they were not interested in ToT according to the Brazilian Air Force Commander Saito. ( link )

GG, thanks for your reply. But I was not so much aiming for a comparison of some radar aperture to specific jammers. I was merely interested in the comparison of a high power radar as the IRBIS-E and older, weaker radars. As you said yourself a single airborne radar is facing lots of problems vs state of the art jammers. Yet we know there will never be a 1on1 really. So the whole situation gets very complex from all sides.

They have oil in the quantity of some estimated 50 billion barrels off-shore. When others have exploited their easy to harvest oil fields the price will rise and make it worthwhile to drill for Brazilian oil too. By then they will want to have the military power to enforce their claims on the oil in their territorial waters. ;)

But isn't this contradicting the VLO approach? I mean even a R-27ER can home on jam, although admittedly it would have a poor chance to hit. And activating any kind of jammer will light you up on every radar screen within 400km, wont it? Hence the F-22 doesn't even have a jammer and is only planned to be capable of using it's radar antenna to do limited jamming. Another point would be the IRBIS-E. If it is indeed able to track a 0.01m^2 RCS doesn't that also mean it should have a much higher burn-through range than "weaker" radars? I mean that's basically the same topic, being able to isolate your own radar echo from the noise. What do you think, is this burn-through range increase proportional to the normal detection range?

Yeah, but that's nothing new really. US is doing the same with Greece. They sold them them missiles but Greece has to ask for their permission if they want to use them. The reasons are purely political. Brazil not being a NATO member could tell them to F off more easily than Greece though.

True, but on the other hand I doubt there would be NATO transports going through these regions. Anyways, what I meant is, that we could try to penalize them somehow without actually killing them or threatening their lives directly. Bombing the shit out of them we will never end the war.

I don't wanna be an ass, but I think those civilians weren't as innocent as it is said now. They knew the terrorists had hijacked it. They were there for one reason: steal some gas. There was an interview with an Afghan boy who supposedly was a victim of the air strike. He told the reporters straight away, that his father had forbidden him to go there but he went anyways to grab some loot. For what it's worth, doing an air strike because of two stolen fuel transporters is just ridiculous. the entire mission probably was 10 or 100 times more expensive than these trucks. We should act more cleverly. Like for example embargo that village for 4 weeks, because of looting or something. They need to know, that working with the terrorists will only hurt them. But we should not blow them up for it.

That's how I get them too. In previous articles the fighter mafia was more spot on though. I see those LockMart programs as a huge waste of tax money, because they sign only to promises without seeing the bill. That's really bad business behavior. By the way, I agree with the "one mission one aircraft" idea. But the other one, "lighter is better", is just plain stupid.

I've seen somewhat similar schemes for Breda, Heinkel and Gotha air crafts. But I have no idea what the wanted one is though.

Am I close at least? Maybe a Gopher, 9K35 something?

I'd say a Gecko, 9K33M something?

This thing looks like a SAM from a Russian Navy vessel.

Hm, but that still can mean two different things. 1) If done by link-16 the platform providing the target data has to basically track both the launching as well as the target aircraft. Otherwise it cannot provide the correct data so that the launching aircraft can calculate mid-course updates. 2) If done by passively picking up the radar signal of the "active" platform it hasn't much or even anything to do with link-16 and could be done by non-link-16 platforms too.

Very interesting. If only I could find the link to the file somewhere. Is it missing or am I blind?

It's retarded if you ask me. Someone watched Private Ryan too often there. There is no reasonable way to destroy a tank like that. And you'd be risking to be where your anti-tank units are aiming at. Nobody would do that in real combat conditions.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. But if my memory serves me well the demo-version had less than 1000 modules. And it also wasn't moveable iirc. This is their first go at it. Someday they'll be more experienced. Then they maybe can mass-produce a more dense, more advanced version at a reasonable price. Let's not forget they're not trying to supply a dozens-of-billion Dollar DoD-project here. They're applying for an Indian project. No point in having a radar more expensive then the actual plane.

The amount of T/R-modules is not only limited by the capabilities of the "regime" producing it. Maybe, just maybe, there's not enough space in the nose cone of a MiG-35 to place a 1000mm AESA-antenna with 2000 modules there... From what I've read Russia isn't producing T/R-modules on its own. Maybe they're assembling them themselves, but afaik they lack certain core compounds such as this Gallium-whatsisname stuff. But since this is a mass-product in cellular phone production it's apparently cheap to import. And it's not considered a classified/non-export technology anymore in western countries.

As I recently linked somewhere else there's someone in this forum referring to this question. He quoted the Su-27's flight book saying this. The EOS can indeed acquire those targets if the conditions allow it. But as someone else correctly stated the MiG-29 has a "weaker" EOS. That is because the MiG's EOS is simply smaller. As for your second question, that's difficult. There are a number of factors. For example if the acquired signature is known it's probably easier to get a range figure. Also the system isn't plain IR, but also optical. If visibility is good it can simply "see" the target. But whatever, I'd assume at large distances the scanned range would be a gross estimation. And that's good enough. Attacking someone with a heater from an odd 90km would be just impossible in real life.

What are you trying to imply here?

Also sometimes squadrons get closed for whatever reasons. Surely their pilots would get offers to work some other job in the airforce, maybe some armchair stuff. If they don't like this alternative I can easily see them quitting service and starting their own business.

Not working properly with the Su-27 either. Shows heading, but wont update distance (and course?). And there's a bug with the pilot log book. When recording a track of the mission the progress is not stored properly in the log book. It just wont save the missions filename or mission name in that case.