Vault

What qualifications? you said you had none. See above. Do they?. I don't see Raytheon employing many guessers. Sorry I don't do personal insults. Sorry, But I'm not playing arm chair analysts with you. Your argument contains dubious information and no solid reliable evidence. You cannot fault me for being skeptical. That's nothing but defensive personal insults. That I'll not entertain. You're failed to project any type of evidence in this discussion and you're resulting to personal insults. I think this discussion has ran its course. With regards in respect to the pilot in question yes I've read he's an ex RAAF Mirage pilot but like I said I take everything off the internet with a pinch of salt.

So you don't know "the nature of the business" then!. Like I said you're uneducated and inexperienced. You're getting defensive when challenged. Why?. But you're not educated or experienced enough to make these types of claims. I would love to know the energy to weight ratio of the propellant used in the R-77, can you even give me the data for burn rate of the propellant in the R-77 which dictates motors impulse duration?, do you even know the motor's impulse duration? you can work out the burn rate here if you have the correct data which I know you don't. http://www.space-rockets.com/burnrate.html all I see is guesstimates. I'm not the arm chair analyst here, you're the one making these uneducated claims that you can't back up when challenged too. My evidence is that you're uneducated and inexperienced and have categorically failed to supply any credible evidence when challenged. Invalid. Why because I disagree with you?. Because you can't prove anything when challenged. Your sources aren't even a starting point.

As I said the charts validity is dubious and open to mis-interpretation. Considering you know "the nature of the business" could you prehaps provide at least some information regarding your proffesional qualifications, data sources and experience that qualifies you to make aerodynamic performance calculations on missiles like the one below?. Using the excuse "your sources are not believable because I don't want to believe them" because you've failed to produce any rock solid evidence when your claims have been challenged is a farce. You become defensive when challenged to provide evidence to statements like the one below. The parameters you would need to know to work this out accurately are heavily classified. Can you prove that your calculations on the R-77 with Minizap don't have an error margin?. Please provide the information on "rocket capability" you used to make in the calculation below. Why do you get so defensive when challenged?. All I see is talk and little evidence.

The AMRAAM A envelope is made by the Soviet's which cannot be confirmed by Raytheon, Hughes or the USAF which warrants it's validity to be treated as dubious and open to interpretation. Anything else is pure speculation. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dubious I've understood Fleeman's studies. I especially understood the part that says the techniques you're utilising should be treated with caution and can have substantial error margins. Where are your sources?. Please provide them. I quoted Fleeman who does have a clue, and he thinks your calculations are to be treated with caution and can incur substantial error margins. That's your opinion. I'm educated enough to know that most of this information is classified so you can't possibly know what your talking about. That's exactly why you can't provide credible evidence to back up your claims.

That is of course your opinion. Apart for the R-27-R envelope chart there all dubious and open to interpretation. Really?, now you're KGB expert who know's how the Soviets aquired this information?. Puuuuuuurrrrrrrrrlease. I don't know where the information came from and I don't wish to speculate but maybe it's a guesstimate?. Who knows?. You sure don't. This is the reason I insist on official information. You're a missile design engineer now?. Tharos you're winding me up aren't you?. My source is Eugene Fleeman a missile design engineer for the USAF with over 30 years experience who states in his book to pay caution to using the same techniques you're utilising. I suggest that once in your life you try and listen to a proffesional. You have unofficial, uneducated, inexperienced guessitmates at best with the possible FACT of substantial error margins.

The source material that was posted in post #151 is very dubious and is open to interpretation. Since when did the Russian's make AIM-120A's?. Fleeman lays caution to using figures from the same techniques that you're using right now for a real world comparison, this also includes Minizap, on the CD-ROM that accompanies Fleeman's book he explains why you should lay caution to the techniquies you're using, the're spreadsheets showing calculations using those techniques that have reasonably large error margins. I won't deny that they do give you approximate performance figures, but I'm not after approximate estimations with possible error margins. Who's someone in the know?. Do they work for Hughes, Raytheon or USAF?. Tharos with the upmost respect I'd like evidence please because your opinion is just that, your opinion, not mine. All I see is lots of talk and little evidence.

Your sources are dubious and open to interpretation to say the least. I take everything that I read online with a big pinch of salt. Using the "even if I can prove it you'll just contradict it" excuse is a joke. Tharos put up a envelope chart for the R-27R and I didn't contradict it because I know it's from a reliable OFFICIAL source. Now for the very last time you either put up an OFFICIAL envelope chart for the AIM-120A from either Raytheon, Hughes or the USAF or this discussion is dead.

Exec are you still living in the fantasy that you know what you're talking about?. Put an AIM-120A envelope chart up thats from Raytheon, Hughes or USAF. I'm not hijacking this thread any more discussing your arm chair analyst fantasies.

No one can state in a factual manner that the AIM-120A's range exceeds the R-77. Using "old school" methods of analysing a missiles aerodynamic performance is not accurate enough to use in place of the real data as stated by Eugene Fleeman on the CD-ROM that compliments his book on tactical missile design. However Fleeman does state that the R-77's lattice fins have inferiour aerodynamic performance compared to the delta fin of the AMRAAM.

Nothing wrong with my Math. I converted Miles not nautical miles into KM. So I take it that's a "no" you don't have any information that is reliable?. Is that abstract from a brochure on an export version of the OLS-35 for export versions of the Su-30 and not the unit that's currently in the Su-35BM?. No it's from a blog, I could easily create that on Photoshop. I'd like an envelope chart from Vympel or RuAF. Hmmm.... So you dont have an envelope chart then? So I take it as you don't have the AIM-120A envelope chart then?. Wow you know loads about the AIM-120 and you haven't even seen an envelope chart. And you got the gull to call Kopp's sources dodgy ROFL.

I've got Carlo claiming the OLS-35 detection range is 27 NM (43KM) from head on and 50 NM (80KM) from the rear. Either way the full complete official paper off the official supplier is what I'm after not brochures off blog sites, that could be anything, that could be out of a catalouge for an export version for all I know. :) http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ols-35-irst-option-for-su-30-family.html R-27R as we know he got wrong. I'd like to see an official envelope chart for the R-77 by either the RuAF or Vympel. AIM-120A envelope from either Hughes, Raytheon or the USAF.

Not everything is classified I agree. Obviously I've misunderstood you and you have reliable official evidence that brings you to the conclusions that Kopp is lying. Bye.

I cut your discussion. You're the one fantasising that you think you know what weapons the RuAF have and don't have in their inventory. Considering that information is HIGHLY classified your opinion is unfounded speculation. Feel free to talk about anything you want. Just don't use classified information in a factual manner to validate your point of view against me. You can find the official news for the PAK-FA here http://sukhoi.org/eng/ and http://www.mil.ru/eng/1862/12068/12088/12221/index.shtml Who are the Russian's?. You've been posting figures that are classified on cutting edge radar and systems found in the F-22A and Su-35BM . And you seem to know exactly what the Russian's do and don't have in their inventory. Why? because my opinion differs from yours? Because I refuse to play pretend fighter pilots and arm chair analyst's with you?..

Exec, I'm not cutting the discussion. I'm being realistic. If you want to carry on in the fantasy that you actually think you know highly classified information be my guest. When was the last time you looked inside the RuAF's weapons storage facility? for someone that's never been inside it you seem to know alot. It's your choice to go quoting figures on radar systems that are heavily classified but don't try to mug me off by attempting to use them as the factual basis in your discussion. Sorry if I've brought your fantasies to an abrupt end. But that is the truth.

Finally you're getting my point. I can't and neither can you.

And your source doesn't lol. your source has zero credit. Seriously when was the last time you looked inside the RuAF's weapons facility and checked their weapons inventory?. How do you know what does and doesn't exsist in the Russian inventory?. Let's be realistic here you don't know what exsists it's classified.

I stated in post #94 to Pilotasso that my source (Kopp) is more credible than his (You) and you replied in post #95. By stating No, it isn't, You're implying that you're more credible than Kopp.... Yeah right! Yeah I just like to look at the pretty pictures. Sometimes I print them off and colour them in. So you're stating you've never used the block 2 9X as an example?.

So you think you're more credible than Kopp. lol. Enough said. Aircraft manuals and dubious sources of information?. lol. Tharos I've got flight manuals and performance charts in my possession that you could only wish for. Does that make me an analyst?...No. I'm not taking anything out of context you regularly use the block 2 9X as an example.

Pilotasso I don't care who disagrees or agrees with me, if I want to argue my point I will, ok. You can think what you like but my "ball of belief" is allot more credible than yours. Lets compare shall we. Kopp is freelance defense analyst who has published more than 300 articles in trade publications he is a senior member of the IEEE, and is endorsed by the AOC and many other credible institutions. He has won awards for articles on radar and EW. He is a research fellow in military strategy at the Monarsh Asia Institute in Melbourne. His papers are the very foundation of computer science research effort that currently encompasses ad hoc networking, GNSS support protocols, NCW, exploitation of radars for high speed datalink applications. Now that's allot of credibility that's endorsed by multiple institutes and sources. Now lets examine your sources. GG Tharos. Eagle Dynamics beta tester for a sim. Is there anything I've missed?. Now I'm not stating that Kopp has not made mistakes because he has, but like the rest of us he is only human. The person you mentioned who likes to point out that Kopp talks about hardware that's not in service is the same person who regularly quotes the that the 9X has a 360 degree WEZ, the 9X that has a 360 WEZ is not even in service untill 2012! and is unproven. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that called double standards.

You're missing the point. My point is he's educated and at least has a clue about the how and why the electronics involved in radar and weapons systems work, which gives him an educated opinion, which you don't have. Moa see this is my point, I'm just hearing irrational contempt without justifiable reasons. If someone gave me a reason for their irrational contempt on Kopp I'll STFU. I respect your patriotism and your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The Su-30 is superior to the Super bug in many aspects. The truth is no one on this forum knows the out come in a show down between the two. Kopp makes a very valid point that the Flanker has alot of tactical advantages in combat over the Bug, combat persistence combined with superior handling and performance is not to be scoffed at.

Ivan to be perfectly honest with you I don't really care what you've spent your life doing, however I'm interested why you and a few others on this forum have so much contempt for Kopp without no apparent justifiable reason. All I see on these forums are alot of irrational fan boys with some agenda to smear the name and reputation of someone who is possibly a critic of their countries choice in military hardware...

Really? Why's he not liked by the Australian defence organisation then?. Critics of Kopp like yourself are failing to give valid reasons for their contempt. Can you emphaise on your comment above by at least backing it with some information of why?.

That's why I stated he's flown the Hornet. I never said he's taken the Hornet to war or taken part in excersises. You're ex-RAAF you should know that the RAAF are far to proffesional to allow someone to take multi million dollar war machines out for "gee whiz" rides... You know there's a MASSIVE difference in being a pilot who operates the radar and weapons system and the electrical engineer that designs and builds the radar. The electrical engineer knows how the radar and weapons system works on a component level, the pilot is a "button pusher" and knows which buttons to push. The electrical engineer is the "brains behind the buttons". If you think that a pilot knows more about radar and it's associated weapons system than an electrical engineer with a Masters degree you're wrong. Pilots actually make up for a very small amount of the overall knowledge base on any given aircraft. You say he's not well regarded in the Australian defence circles, why are they permitting him to fly their aircraft?, he's obviously impressed someone in the RAAF, you know the RAAF don't just give someone the honour of flying their main air to air fighter for nothing...

Kopp has flown the F-18 check the picture at the bottom of this link. It specifically states that Kopp's flown the Super Hornet. http://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html

Bumfire I wouldn't underestimate the Tories. They'll drop the JSF and blame it on Labour over spending at the drop of a hat. I don't think the UK will buying 138 airframes either.