Vault

There's a good topic on overclockers about CPU's and gaming. Get a good duo-core, I've got an E6800 that I've currently overclocked to 4GHZ on air using AI suite!, I only run 4GHZ when I'm gaming. Unless you multitask multiple CPU demanding applications like video encoding/decoding quads and i cores are a waste of money. Not many people are able to hit 4GHZ barrier on quads or i cores.

Most commercially available IRCCD and CCD cameras have electronic filters that block out the sun. You can see these filters overlay the sun @38 seconds in this video. I'd guess the filters on military grade cameras will be far more advanced.

I think you've failed to interpret the information correctly that you've used to dismiss the claims of others. Well at least you admit that you don't know if the OLS-35's detection range is for AB or non AB. That data is for a non after burning target and you know it.

Classic. You've gone quiet. :) Do you reckon it's a coincidence?. With or without AB that's the question. But we both know don't we. ;)

No of course I don't what does the IR bit stand for?. :D

That same website has Modex number NH205 as crashed/lost 14.02.86?? http://anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-buno.htm

Like I said I'm far from the only one that beleives that. :) :) ;) Your source, you provide the links, that's how it works. ROFL. OK, IR eyes!. Links please.

I can post some fun quotes too. ;)

Modex number NH205 crashed/lost 14.02.1986 I'll try to find out what happened.

But I'm not the only one who's had problems with that chart before am I? ;) . So do you have that evidence yet? Show me where that chart comes from then. You couldn't supply evidence over at F16.net and I see you still can't supply them now. Remember this topic? http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13506-postdays-0-postorder-asc.html That advert is written in English and not Russian which is a clue that it's an advert for a dumbed down export version of the OLS-35 that's currently in the Su-35BM. Sure, I can't disprove that it isn't, but you can't prove that it's not. Anyway I'm not the only one who suspects that's for an export version. Anyway like I said the target is a Su-30 and not a Rhino and is that at cruise or with afterburner on?. I would also like to see where that information was abstracted from because I can't find that article on the official website. ;) www.niip-moskva.ru Now how would you know that?. You keep stating this is official data but you fail to provide any links to this information. Lets see you provide links to the official information for all of the facts you just posted above. But we both know detection and tracking ranges of US systems are highly CLASSIFIED. Did you, great. I can't find anything about wing area from the manafacturers website. Considering Sukhoi have not released the official wing area of the Su-30 how did you manage to work that out? http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/ Highly doubtful it'll have the same RCS. Can you link to where Kopp says the Flanker will have the same RCS using RAM as the Rhino?.

After TVC and AESA will that require adding ballast to the front?.

Your putting 1 plus 1 together and coming up with 3. Show me an R-77 envelope from Vympel and then we can discuss this. Post the video. I've already proved that using Minizap is inaccurate, even the coder that makes Minizap states it's inaccurate by 10% and has distance and loft issues. Prove that Kopp's estimation is false!. That abstract of information you posted on the OLS-35 is probably an advertisment for an export version of the OLS-35. Popular beleif is that the Russian's like to export "dumbed" down versions of the hardware their airforce is using. The specification in that list also uses a Su-30 as the target aircraft. Not all aircraft put out the same amout of IR. That ad is crap. Then provide the official radar chart for both the radar types. Then provide the official radar chart for both radars to prove your point and provide a link where Kopp states that. As I said he an analyst maybe he's analysing the worst case scenario. No one can prove or disprove what the Russian's do and don't have in their weapons inventory. Prove he's wrong. I see nothing about wing loading figures of the Su-35BM or the Su30 on the Sukhoi website. http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/ Like he said it's his website and he IS entitled to his own opinion. You make the accusation then you must be able to prove it. You can't dismiss the bloke without having some evidence.

That article was last updated in 2010. The EJ2000's are a great powerplant. The Typhoon can indeed supercruise with a minimum A2A payload. I agree they should of installed the gun. It's appears that the UK MoD failed to learn from the lesson of the UASF's F-4. What is it they say "a clever man learns from his mistakes but a wise man learns from others peoples mistakes". TVC is a waste of money. An RAF pilot is quoted saying "I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the advantages of TVC". I'd much rather see an AESA in the EF2K. Ed Firth Typhoon pilot. Agreed. I would like to see a comparison done by Kopp. Now's not the time. I'm genuinely concerned at the survivability of the EF2K against the PAK-FA but that's just my opinion.

5%, well you got that wrong the coder of Minizap states the error margin is a massive 10%, and that is compounded by the fact that this technique can also incur further error margins as stated by Fleeman. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=43.msg560 Minizap is an estimation tool at the best. It's 90% accurate and the accuracy is further compounded by unknown variables which don't even give you a "reasonable" comparsion. I'm still waiting for your evidence on the R-77 simulation that brought you to your conclusion that the R-77 has less range than the AIM120A. Now you used your Minizap "comparison" to argue that the AIM-120A has better range than the R-77. Can you prove that?. The coder of Minizap makes all the statements below here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=43.msg560 "I don't have a solid confirmation that the results are accurate" "I've found it educational and somewhat useful for rough comparative purposes" "The errors result from (a) trajectory model, since this is mostly guesswork especially for loft, and (b) drag coefficient" "Although it probably won't give absolute range/speed accurately" "Some data for Russian missiles came from modern Russian-language journals "

Good points Topol. I too would like to see him write an article on the Eurofighter v's PAK-FA/SU-35BM/Su-30. While it's only my opinion I suspect the Eurofighter's PAK-FA "bait". I like his article on the Eurofighter named demon or Lemon. http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

Try Reading the comment below comprehensively and understand your method. ;) While we're on the subject of some guy claiming stuff on the internet do you have your evidence yet?.

Fishing?. I'm just reiterating what an missile design engineer said. You made the analysis on the R-77... not me. What qualifications? you said you had none!. You said you had reading comprehension and method which makes you inexperienced and unqualified in missile aerodynamics. Don't take my word for it though, you should apply to Raytheon and tell them you can bring reading comprehnsion and method to them in missile design.... let's see where you get... Like I said, you cannot fault me for being skeptical of peoples claims on a forum.

I'm not. See below. OK, show me the evidence?... you can't can you.

OK. I claimed your techniques for analysing the R-77 can have large error margins according to Eugene Fleeman. I also stated the data you need for an accurate simulation is classified. And you also stated. Naa you already answered that. Evidence?. Oh that's right you have none. All talk and no evidence that's all I see....

That's exactly what he says on his homepage. And I quote "The views stated in posted articles are those of their respective authors, and all posted materials retain the copyright of the respective owner or owners." http://www.ausairpower.net/ That's exactly what he does. So far only the R-27R has proved to be false information. Ah OK you had lost me there. It's a shame that you feel like you have to speak to me like that though. Feel free to fault me for being skeptical of people on a forum. I'm still failing to see this "agenda". I think most of the Australian fighter community dislike Kopp because of his analysis of the PAK-FA and Su-35BM on the JSF and block 2 Rhino.

Lets be fair, those adverts probably pay for the running costs of the website, which you cannot fault him for. You say that he has an agenda. Could you please explain this agenda?. Do you think maybe the Australian fighter community may dislike Kopp because he stated that the JSF and the block 2 Rhino is PAK-FA and potentially Su-35BM "bait"?. IIRC He pays for that website out of his own pocket. You can't fault him for minimising the cost. Is this the agenda you're talking about?. No I wouldn't trust a Hospital that advertises to patients. The blokes paying for overheads not advertising to the dying. If you have advertising and funding issues with Kopp, I suggest you talk to him about it. What guy says what? I'm sorry I'm not following you here. Please be a bit more specific.

Lol you even know my job better than me. I don't need to qualifiy my statements, I'm not the one posting dubious material, and making simulations of the R-77. It's not insultive it's the appropriate terminology. See #6. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fantasy Tharos you never did post the information about the R-77's propellant burn rate that's a crucial factor in your amatuer guesstimate. Did you find it out?. Yeah I forgot Vympel just hands out data sheets to anyone these days.

I am an Engineer. Sorry, we don't do guessing. Why?. Because I don't agree with you. I'm not entertaining your fantasies. Like I said I'm skeptical. Don't fault me for not relying on someone else's word, especially on a forum. Ask him about your R-77 analysis I'm sure he's fired loads of them.