SU30 vs Super Hornet

[RIPTIDE]

This is his site? http://www.ausairpower.net/

 

I didn't see any Eve Online adverts. I don't see any adverts.

[EtherealN]

What you fail to notice is that he styles himself a think-tank. Now aside from the fact that a "think-tank" is not a one-man operation, it's a whole institution and lobby organization. Having an agenda comes right out of the box from that: think-tanks have agendas by definition. The way those tanks work is that they accept donations from people who support their cause, and they use the money to develop or research material to be used in lobbying for opinion supportive of said cause either at a legislative assembly or in the popular opinion arena.

 

As for faulting him for minimising cost: I wouldn't, if he said "this is my website and this is my opinion". That's not quite what he does, is it? Rather, as has been mentioned already, he commits fatal mistakes of making direct comparisons between missiles using data from extremely different regimes. Launch altitude and closure is massively important stuff for evaluating launch parameters for a missile - but apparently it's not so important for Mr Kopp.

 

As for "what guy"... Seriously... Brain. Use it. The actual RAAF pilot. What he says about himself is true. And if you want to use the "oh but can't trust people on the internet" defence against his opinion, please use it against Mr. Kopp's gaming site as well. Or is that contrary to your own agenda? ;)

[EtherealN]

This is his site? http://www.ausairpower.net/

 

I didn't see any Eve Online adverts. I don't see any adverts.

 

Picture taken one minute ago attached.

[RIPTIDE]

Picture taken one minute ago attached.

Ahhhh. I have adblocker on FF!!!! :megalol: Adblock = no Ads.

[EtherealN]

Suspected that. :)

[GGTharos]

Lol you even know my job better than me.

 

I know engineers who make guesses.

 

I don't need to qualifiy my statements, I'm not the one posting dubious material, and making simulations of the R-77.

 

Fail. Yes, you do need to qualify your statements. You are claiming that mine are incorrect, prove it.

 

It's not insultive it's the appropriate terminology. See #6. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fantasy

 

Glad we're on the same page. You are making unqualified, uneducated assumptions. :)

 

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?.

 

You don't need it; you obviously have nothing useful to do with it except to claim that it is another guesstimate. You keep playing that game, I will leave you to it.

 

Yeah I forgot Vympel just hands out data sheets to anyone these days.

 

Vympel hands out data sheets to customers. Sometimes those customers share.

[Vault]

What you fail to notice is that he styles himself a think-tank. Now aside from the fact that a "think-tank" is not a one-man operation, it's a whole institution and lobby organization. Having an agenda comes right out of the box from that: think-tanks have agendas by definition. The way those tanks work is that they accept donations from people who support their cause, and they use the money to develop or research material to be used in lobbying for opinion supportive of said cause either at a legislative assembly or in the popular opinion arena.

 

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 not quite what he does, is it? Rather, as has been mentioned already, he commits fatal mistakes of making direct comparisons between missiles using data from extremely different regimes. Launch altitude and closure is massively important stuff for evaluating launch parameters for a missile - but apparently it's not so important for Mr Kopp.

 

That's exactly what he does.

 

So far only the R-27R has proved to be false information.

 

As for "what guy"... Seriously... Brain. Use it. The actual RAAF pilot. What he says about himself is true. And if you want to use the "oh but can't trust people on the internet" defence against his opinion, please use it against Mr. Kopp's gaming site as well. Or is that contrary to your own agenda?

 

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.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vault

[Vault]

I know engineers who make guesses.

 

OK.

 

Fail. Yes, you do need to qualify your statements. You are claiming that mine are incorrect, prove it.

 

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.

 

I don't have any degrees in aerodynamics, or missile engineering, nor do I have articles endorsed by the IEEE.

What I do have is reading comprehension and method.

 

 

Glad we're on the same page. You are making unqualified, uneducated assumptions. :)

 

Naa you already answered that.

 

You don't need it; you obviously have nothing useful to do with it except to claim that it is another guesstimate. You keep playing that game, I will leave you to it.

 

Vympel hands out data sheets to customers. Sometimes those customers share.

 

Evidence?. Oh that's right you have none. All talk and no evidence that's all I see....

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

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.

 

Okay, and? How are you going to determine the margin of error?

 

Naa you already answered that.

 

Yes. You are unqualified.

 

Evidence?. Oh that's right you have none. All talk and no evidence that's all I see....

 

It is what you pretend to see, over and over again. All because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

[Vault]

Okay, and? How are you going to determine the margin of error?

 

I'm not.

 

Yes. You are unqualified.

 

See below.

 

I don't have any degrees in aerodynamics, or missile engineering, nor do I have articles endorsed by the IEEE.

What I do have is reading comprehension and method.

 

It is what you pretend to see, over and over again. All because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

OK, show me the evidence?... you can't can you.

[GGTharos]

I'm not.

 

Then you're just fishing, and you've no need for this data.

 

See below.

 

You are unqualified to judge of any form. You have proven this repeatedly yourself. See above for one example. When and if you decide to join in and do something useful, then your arguments might have a valid starting basis. As is, they do not. Nor does your assessment of my qualifications. I do not need a piece of paper to tell me what I can do or not. Apparently, you do.

 

OK, show me the evidence?... you can't can you.

 

Already have. The only thing you could do is answer 'haven't you ever made a mistake in your life' to me, and ignore a RAAF pilot.

[vrv]

So you guys are basically going to go back and forth for the next 50 pages...maybe we could get the biggest thread on the forums. Both of you are wrong because the F-14, piloted by Maverick and Goose, would destroy both because you can't shoot them down and Tom Cruise is IMBA.

[Vault]

Then you're just fishing, and you've no need for this data.

 

Fishing?. I'm just reiterating what an missile design engineer said. You made the analysis on the R-77... not me.

 

You are unqualified to judge of any form. You have proven this repeatedly yourself. See above for one example. When and if you decide to join in and do something useful, then your arguments might have a valid starting basis. As is, they do not. Nor does your assessment of my qualifications. I do not need a piece of paper to tell me what I can do or not. Apparently, you do.

 

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...

 

I don't have any degrees in aerodynamics, or missile engineering, nor do I have articles endorsed by the IEEE.

What I do have is reading comprehension and method.

 

Already have. The only thing you could do is answer 'haven't you ever made a mistake in your life' to me, and ignore a RAAF pilot.

 

Like I said, you cannot fault me for being skeptical of peoples claims on a forum.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

Fishing?. I'm just reiterating what an missile design engineer said. You made the analysis on the R-77... not me.

 

So you're still basically not doing anything useful.

 

What qualifications? you said you had none!. You said you had reading comprehension and method which makes you inexperienced and unqualified in missile aerodynamics.

 

I said I have no degrees. It seems you like to freely translate to whatever you like.

 

Like I said, you cannot fault me for being skeptical of peoples claims on a forum.

 

I can fault you for being a hypocrite instead. Kopp isn't doing much better than some guy claiming some stuff on the internet.

[GGTharos]

What, you've never watched a soap opera? ;)

 

So you guys are basically going to go back and forth for the next 50 pages...maybe we could get the biggest thread on the forums. Both of you are wrong because the F-14, piloted by Maverick and Goose, would destroy both because you can't shoot them down and Tom Cruise is IMBA.

[Vault]

I said I have no degrees. It seems you like to freely translate to whatever you like.

 

Try Reading the comment below comprehensively and understand your method. ;)

 

I don't have any degrees in aerodynamics, or missile engineering, nor do I have articles endorsed by the IEEE.

What I do have is reading comprehension and method.

 

 

I can fault you for being a hypocrite instead. Kopp isn't doing much better than some guy claiming some stuff on the internet.

 

While we're on the subject of some guy claiming stuff on the internet do you have your evidence yet?.

[GGTharos]

Try Reading the comment below comprehensively and understand your method. ;)

 

Try acquiring a clue ;)

 

While we're on the subject of some guy claiming stuff on the internet do you have your evidence yet?.

 

Like the stuff you already accepted? It's been provided, your turn :)

[topol-m]

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"?.

 

If these 2 aircraft are going to be a bate we shall see when PAK-FA enters serial production if we get our hands on enough info about radar, avionics, missiles performance, ECM/ECCM, flight characteristics, etc. And why do I get the feeling that one big part of that info about Russia`s and USA`s latest fighters will be classified?

BTW if according to Kopp these 2 are bait I wonder what is his opinion on Typhoon vs PAK-FA/Su-35BM/Su-30.

[Grimes]

Admittedly off topic, but reading this thread makes me wonder who wins the arguments at home.... GG or his wife/girlfriend.

 

On topic. Its still just a theoretical debate over which aircraft and its systems are more superior. Yes you have data and you can estimate the probabilities of an outcome, but its still a "If this happens this way" situation as such fights where the pilots lives have been on the line have never occurred.

[topol-m]

Admittedly off topic, but reading this thread makes me wonder who wins the arguments at home.... GG or his wife/girlfriend.

 

 

:lol: Well none of them wins the arguments that`s why they throw a dice to determine the winner :D

[EtherealN]

2D6 with whoever managed to squeeze in the last word getting a +2 modifier. :)

[GGTharos]

Admittedly off topic, but reading this thread makes me wonder who wins the arguments at home.... GG or his wife/girlfriend.

 

Well, the truth is we roll a- damn, EtherealN beat me to it ;)

 

On topic. Its still just a theoretical debate over which aircraft and its systems are more superior. Yes you have data and you can estimate the probabilities of an outcome, but its still a "If this happens this way" situation as such fights where the pilots lives have been on the line have never occurred.

 

You can only compare simple scenarios I think. There is also pilot testimony. The problem is that people always view this as 'the better plane will always win' which may be true in SOME cases, but realistically the 'better plane' basically has a better loss exchange ratio.

[Vault]

If these 2 aircraft are going to be a bate we shall see when PAK-FA enters serial production if we get our hands on enough info about radar, avionics, missiles performance, ECM/ECCM, flight characteristics, etc. And why do I get the feeling that one big part of that info about Russia`s and USA`s latest fighters will be classified?

BTW if according to Kopp these 2 are bait I wonder what is his opinion on Typhoon vs PAK-FA/Su-35BM/Su-30.

 

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

[tflash]

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

 

This article was written in 2000. We are 2010. Why stick to webpages from a decade ago while you can have up-to-date information in journals like Airforces Monthly, Air International, Aviation Week, Flug Revue to name only a few?

 

Kopp's article has some merit; but since Typhoon is operational the supercruise ability has been validated and the engines have proven extremely satisfactory, both in performance and in reliability. It is typically an engine in the F414 class, with considerably less weight than F100 engines, allowing twin engines in same aircraft class.

 

Pirate was introduced rather silently, and for A/G Litening is used, the HMS is there. As was to be expected, the most foolish aspect was the UK Mod intension to drop the gun. They had to reverse course on this, as about anyone on this planet except the Mod could have foreseen.

 

Thrust vectoring is again considered, though no customer committment has been taken. It would not be pursued for added manoevrability since the aircraft performs already very well, but rather for fuel economy and engine wear reduction.

 

Most likely tranche 3B will feature AESA radar, since this is an export market requirement.

 

Compared with legacy fighters, aircraft like Eurofighter and Rafale stand out mainly in three areas: production techniques and materials; integrated self-defense systems and digital fly-by-wire.

 

It makes no sense to compare Eurofighter with SU-35BM or Pak-Fa since Eurofighter is operational now and who knows what upgrades will be fitted in 10 years time. Maybe thrust-vectoring, certainly AESA and Meteor. I never read anything about RCS improvements like RAM coating or inlet blade shielding and the likes. I guess we wont see that on Typhoon.

[Vault]

It may come as a surprise to you, but those of us who do use these tools understand what some of the problems with those are, and we have an idea of how to use them to make our comparisons.

Our first confirmation that minizap (as well as our guesses concerning missile fuels and other things) was reasonably accurate if you could plug in the right parameters, was when we got very accurate ballistic charts for the AIM-9L in its basic and 'future missile' test configuration (they were testing part of aerodynamics for AMRAAM on it). Minizap (With our guess) ended up over-estimating about 5%, which we knew it would do - it does this for ALL missiles, so that error can be ignored.

 

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

 

The R-77 is special: Minizap over-estimates its range because the aerobraking effect of the lattice fins at certain speeds is not taken into account, nor is the fact that they are less draggy than traditional fins at some other speeds. We can't do anything about that unfortunately, but even so the difference in body drag and rocket capability still puts the AIM-120A/B 'close' or 'ahead'.

 

In short, we have a REASONABLE comparison ... to not be interested in reasonable comparison and demanding super-accurate data is folly in a situation where an estimate is quite acceptable if you cannot get the real deal. At any rate, it is far better than going off of all those 'officially stated figures' on the internet. At minimum you get to learn a whole lot more about rocketry ;)

 

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 "

Edited August 13, 2010 by Vault