SU30 vs Super Hornet

[Vault]

I gave you enough sources. If you have brain you should be able to understand them.

I gave you various sources, but nonetheless you want me to do something impossible. You know that I can’t give you such Raytheon’s charts so you will still contradict everything I say just because I don’t have that source you want me to have. That’s just trolling. You just want to live in your dream world so badly that you refuse to accept anything. So, summarizing:

1. Two sources for AIM-120A range (one official Russian, and one from a real aircraft giving us range for 3,35km altitude and 1900 km/h closing speed)

2. Various sources for R-77 range (official max ranges + range chart for comparison)

3. Various sources for R-27 range (official max ranges + official chart from MiG-29 manual)

 

Every source closely confirms each other, so I don’t know where’s the problem? This data is all what is needed to know about max ranges of these missiles.

 

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.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

Your sources are dubious and open to interpretation to say the least.

 

Okay, you can call them dubious, but open to interpretation? Barely, and only in one case. These are real sources, and only in some cases they might be missing a piece of data here or there; even so they are good for a general comparison.

 

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.

The AMRAAM envelope is from reliable Russian source, and the capability is confirmed using minizap, which uses Fleeman's techniques. The really fun part was that although we could not tell if it was an estimation or stolen data, the basic comparison was independently confirmed (ie. we did not show this data) by someone who was in the know - so saying that 'No one can state in a factual manner that the AIM-120A's range exceeds the R-77' is in fact incorrect. Someone could, and has.

If it isn't enough for you, that is fine. There are people who looked at this stuff and decided the information was good enough, and made some decisions upon it - that is what counts.

[exec]

My sources are dubious? In which part? Do you mean that R-77 chart? Again: manufacturer claims 80km max range for the R-27R (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOyaa43X-QI/AAAAAAAAAPU/2TLyVszOfn4/s1600-h/R-27+BVRAAM.JPG) and this of course for the best case scenario (20km alt head on shot). But that’s nothing unusual because all those max ranges are for the best case scenarios. Range for R-77 is quoted as 80-100km. It’s not much bigger, is it? When you compare charts for R-27R and R-77 you can see that the difference between them is actually close to 20%

Then you have official AIM-120A chart from Russian manual and as a confirmation you have the shot from F-16 HUD (http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/513/f16hudv.jpg). 35km range at 3,35km altitude and 1900 km/h closing speed. This is 50% greater range than the R-27R.

[Vault]

Okay, you can call them dubious, but open to interpretation? Barely, and only in one case. These are real sources, and only in some cases they might be missing a piece of data here or there; even so they are good for a general comparison.

 

The source material that was posted in post #151 is very dubious and is open to interpretation.

 

The AMRAAM envelope is from reliable Russian source, and the capability is confirmed using minizap, which uses Fleeman's techniques. The really fun part was that although we could not tell if it was an estimation or stolen data, the basic comparison was independently confirmed (ie. we did not show this data) by someone who was in the know - so saying that 'No one can state in a factual manner that the AIM-120A's range exceeds the R-77' is in fact incorrect. Someone could, and has.

If it isn't enough for you, that is fine. There are people who looked at this stuff and decided the information was good enough, and made some decisions upon it - that is what counts.

 

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.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

The source material that was posted in post #151 is very dubious and is open to interpretation.

 

The three diagrams posted there are not very open to interpretation. Only the R-77 one, because it does not state launcher/target velocity. If you want to consider them dubious, then I cannot see why you would consider Kopp's sources credible.

 

 

Since when did the Russian's make AIM-120A's?

 

The Russians had a need to know and an intelligence effort to satisfy their need to know. In case that was not clear, they acquired these figures via intelligence efforts and they were used in pilot instruction to help them fight against AMRAAM equipped opponents.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 ;)

 

 

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.

 

Yes, this person works for a particular air force.

You will have to find your own someone for that confirmation - I'm only telling you that this, and other sources were enough to convince me, as well as other people who acted on this data that these sources were reliable and credible enough to consider doing things based upon them. In other words I'm telling you the information is out there, but in THIS case, the unfortunate arrangement is such that I also have to tell you that you'll have to find confirmation independently. I'm not saying you have to believe what I told you outright, because I know I have not provided you with enough information to check it.

[Vault]

The three diagrams posted there are not very open to interpretation. Only the R-77 one, because it does not state launcher/target velocity. If you want to consider them dubious, then I cannot see why you would consider Kopp's sources credible.

 

That is of course your opinion. Apart for the R-27-R envelope chart there all dubious and open to interpretation.

 

 

The Russians had a need to know and an intelligence effort to satisfy their need to know. In case that was not clear, they acquired these figures via intelligence efforts and they were used in pilot instruction to help them fight against AMRAAM equipped opponents.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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'.

 

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.

 

 

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 ;)

 

You have unofficial, uneducated, inexperienced guessitmates at best with the possible FACT of substantial error margins.

[GGTharos]

That is of course your opinion. Apart for the R-27-R envelope chart there all dubious and open to interpretation.

 

Um, no, they are not. The AMRAAM envelope is in fact very clearly marked, and there is zero room for 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.

 

No, I don't know how they aquired it, and I said as much - I also said it is part of the actual combat training, just like that R-27R envelope.

 

 

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.

 

... and that would be you? Because I assume you've seen what I have done, looked at Fleeman's stuff, and judged that my methods were inadequate. If so, I welcome corrections - perhaps you've understood Fleeman's writings better than I.

 

You have unofficial, uneducated, inexperienced guessitmates at best with the possible FACT of substantial error margins.

 

Actually I have pretty good sources, so do a few other people, and you have your blinders on.

You have offered precicely zilch, zip, squat and nada to support anything you say - the only thing you have been throwing around so far has been 'I don't know so you can't know'. You have not bothered doing any research of your own.

You quote Fleeman as if you had a clue what you are talking about, but you do not - you have not actually bothered doing any studies of your own, and it shows.

 

You have done nothing but troll, you have failed to offer anything constructive, and you have instead engaged in assinine attempts to discredit anything you don't want to agree with WITHOUT actually being capable of discrediting anything.

 

You have so far not attempted to educate yourself. You have challenged what has been said without the slightest attempt to deal with what is presented, or to discover sources of your own.

 

You have then had the gall to call others inexperienced and uneducated.

 

You have been a waste of time. Despite this, I will continue to correct your delusions as eventually hitting people with clue by fours either gets them pointed in the right direction or causes them enough bruises to leave ;)

[Pilotasso]

Vault, just by chance, are you having fun at our expense? because it seems you just ignore any source at will and push forward with your personal impression rampantly regardless. Its not the first time someone did this and then told us later to mock our faces.

 

Anyone else with a common sense would just avoid making himself look like what you do now.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Pilotasso

[bumfire]

This thread is going nowhere.

 

It has totally and utterly deviated from the Original Post.

 

Nobody can agree on anything and, the more it continues the more vocal and personal it gets.

 

I personally dont know who is right and who is wrong, so I wont even speculate. But I do know that this thread hasnt just been derailed, its actually jumped the tracks and landed on rails going in the opposite direction.

[Vault]

Um, no, they are not. The AMRAAM envelope is in fact very clearly marked, and there is zero room for interpretation.

 

No, I don't know how they aquired it, and I said as much - I also said it is part of the actual combat training, just like that R-27R envelope.

 

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

 

 

... and that would be you? Because I assume you've seen what I have done, looked at Fleeman's stuff, and judged that my methods were inadequate. If so, I welcome corrections - perhaps you've understood Fleeman's writings better than I.

 

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.

 

Actually I have pretty good sources, so do a few other people, and you have your blinders on.

You have offered precicely zilch, zip, squat and nada to support anything you say - the only thing you have been throwing around so far has been 'I don't know so you can't know'. You have not bothered doing any research of your own.

You quote Fleeman as if you had a clue what you are talking about, but you do not - you have not actually bothered doing any studies of your own, and it shows.

 

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.

 

You have done nothing but troll, you have failed to offer anything constructive, and you have instead engaged in assinine attempts to discredit anything you don't want to agree with WITHOUT actually being capable of discrediting anything.

 

That's your opinion.

 

You have so far not attempted to educate yourself. You have challenged what has been said without the slightest attempt to deal with what is presented, or to discover sources of your own.

 

You have then had the gall to call others inexperienced and uneducated.

 

You have been a waste of time. Despite this, I will continue to correct your delusions as eventually hitting people with clue by fours either gets them pointed in the right direction or causes them enough bruises to leave ;)

 

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.

[pauldy]

Not sure if this has been posted already or under the topic..

but I think this might be worth considering especially in a combat situation.

[EtherealN]

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.

 

Or, possibly, the reason why he cannot give exact sources is the fact that it is classified, so it is either stuff he shouldn't have access too, or the source shouldn't have told him/given the information to him in the first place but did so anyhow. Or maybe he does have access to the classified information but is obviously not able to give a copy to you, since you not having it means you're not cleared for access...

 

There's lots of ways for that to play out. Don't just select your favourite interpretation and run with it. Consider all of them before running your mouth. ;)

 

EDIT: Though I do like how you are not so critical in your analysis of Mr. Carlo Kopp's sources. I mean, he advertises games like EVE Online on the website in question, so obviously his credibility is "OVER 9000!!!"

 

...or maybe you should listen to the actual RAAF pilot that has posted in the thread. Just saying... ;)

Edited August 12, 2010 by EtherealN

[GGTharos]

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

 

There is nothing to mis-interpret in that diagram. You may question the sources, that's about it.

 

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.

 

That's great. Unfortuantely you failed to understand that others might have half a clue as to what they're doing. ;)

 

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.

 

Fleeman knows what he's talking about, and I have no problem with his statements. I have a problem with yours, which are unsubstantiated. His stuff matches real combat charts of several missiles; there are a couple of caveats and we are aware of them and take them into account. In short, you've not done any work, you've not attempted to do your own research and it shows. You're just defending Kopp on the basis of him having a bunch of publications and degrees and you have effectively ran out of any argument other than that 'your sources are not believable because I don't want to believe them'.

 

My sources? You've seen a few of them; not all can be made available to you, hint hint - you know, as in find your own independently. That is the nature of this particular business. It is a starting point. I've already tried to tell you you'll need to go outside of this forum to confirm things, but you are unwilling or unable to.

I'll go with unwilling - because if you did attempt to do this research you'd end up with an egg in your face given your posts here. I have neither the inclination nor the time to write a dissertation for your entertainment here.

 

That's your opinion.

 

Fact.

 

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.

 

You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about - there's plenty of information that is not classified, or if it was, it is just plain out there despite that fact.

[GGTharos]

The SH is a thing of beauty, no?

 

Not sure if this has been posted already or under the topic..

but I think this might be worth considering especially in a combat situation.

[Vault]

There is nothing to mis-interpret in that diagram. You may question the sources, that's about it.

 

As I said the charts validity is dubious and open to mis-interpretation.

 

 

Fleeman knows what he's talking about, and I have no problem with his statements. I have a problem with yours, which are unsubstantiated. His stuff matches real combat charts of several missiles; there are a couple of caveats and we are aware of them and take them into account. In short, you've not done any work, you've not attempted to do your own research and it shows. You're just defending Kopp on the basis of him having a bunch of publications and degrees and you have effectively ran out of any argument other than that 'your sources are not believable because I don't want to believe them'.

 

My sources? You've seen a few of them; not all can be made available to you, hint hint - you know, as in find your own independently. That is the nature of this particular business. It is a starting point. I've already tried to tell you you'll need to go outside of this forum to confirm things, but you are unwilling or unable to.

I'll go with unwilling - because if you did attempt to do this research you'd end up with an egg in your face given your posts here. I have neither the inclination nor the time to write a dissertation for your entertainment here.

 

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.

 

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'.

 

 

You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about - there's plenty of information that is not classified, or if it was, it is just plain out there despite that fact.

 

Why do you get so defensive when challenged?. All I see is talk and little evidence.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

As I said the charts validity is dubious and open to mis-interpretation.

 

I have no idea what you could mis-interpret on that chart, unless you have trouble reading. I have no idea why you would consider foreign intelligence so dubious, too - I mean, hey, it's just the pilot's lives that depend on this data, not to mention winning the fight overall.

I have no problem with viewing that chart as potentially having some error, but I have no reason to dismiss it either.

 

Considering you know "the nature of the business" could you prehaps provide at least some information regarding your proffesional qualifications and experience that qualifies you to make aerodynamic performance calculations on missiles?.

 

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 figure that said calculations matching up combat charts or other materials proves the calculations themselves, my qualifications needn't even be taken into account ;)

 

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.

 

The farce - and hypocrisy, is on your end. You haven't even shown that you know what you are talking about, but you demand proof that I know what I'm talking about? How would you be able to tell?

Show me I am not wasting my time with you.

 

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.

 

Actually, I know and I TOLD you there is an error margin, I told you what it is, and I told you it is consistent.

What about the R-77 is there that you would like to know? You can reasonably estimate the fuel mass, and you can reasonably estimate the fuel's specific impulse from knowledge of fuels used in the R-27 missile series.

You can then get your conclusion backed up by someone who knows more than you if you know where to ask.

 

Why do you get so defensive when challenged?. All I see is talk and little evidence.

 

... where's your evidence? The only think you have done so far is ... your quote above :) There is no discourse with you, here, because you are refusing to have one.

 

As I've said before, the sources presented in this thread are a starting point. Don't like them? Too bad for you. There is a good deal of people who look for these things and then try to get them verified, sometimes successfuly. You are outside the circle.

 

It has nothing to do with me being defensive. It has everything to do with you being an irritant.

 

To make it even more clear to you, and I guess to repeat myself, you have done nothing that is constructive.

Until you actually have some basis for passing judgement, I consider any argument you make invalid.

[GGTharos]

So you don't know "the nature of the business" then!. Like I said you're uneducated and inexperienced.

 

You have no basis to judge my qualifications or anybody else's.

 

But you're not educated or experienced enough to make these types of claims.

 

You are not qualified to make this statement. Period.

 

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 rockets impulse duration?, you can work out here if you have the correct data which I know you don't. http://www.space-rockets.com/burnrate.html all I see it guesstimates.

 

Reasonably derived guesstimates work quite well. It does not make much time to prove it to yourself.

 

I'm not the arm chair analyst here,

 

Oh but you are. You became one the moment you started this argument.

 

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.

 

You wouldn't know credible evidence if it hit you in the face :)

I've already supplied the R-27R chart. I have a bunch more.

 

Invalid. Why because I disagree with you?. Because you can't prove anything when challenged. Your sources aren't even a starting point.

 

Your argument is constructed on straw men. Your argument does not contain attempts at examining data. This is why your argument is logically invalid.

 

The data offered so far is quite a reasonable starting point, unless you don't know how to read it, use it, or especially branch off into doing your own work.

 

As in congratulations for attempting to call me uneducated and inexperienced while proving you are not capable of doing anything yourself. All because you did not like the fact that Kopp is a poor source for air combat analysis ;)

 

You went about this in the most predictable way possible too: You ignored the real pilot who tried to inform you, and went after the easiest straw man you could construct.

[Vault]

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 figure that said calculations matching up combat charts or other materials proves the calculations themselves, my qualifications needn't even be taken into account

 

So you don't know "the nature of the business" then!. Like I said you're uneducated and inexperienced.

 

The farce - and hypocrisy, is on your end. You haven't even shown that you know what you are talking about, but you demand proof that I know what I'm talking about? How would you be able to tell?

Show me I am not wasting my time with you.

 

You're getting defensive when challenged. Why?.

 

Actually, I know and I TOLD you there is an error margin, I told you what it is, and I told you it is consistent.

What about the R-77 is there that you would like to know? You can reasonably estimate the fuel mass, and you can reasonably estimate the fuel's specific impulse from knowledge of fuels used in the R-27 missile series.

You can then get your conclusion backed up by someone who knows more than you if you know where to ask.

 

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.

 

... where's your evidence? The only think you have done so far is ... your quote above There is no discourse with you, here, because you are refusing to have one.

 

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.

 

As I've said before, the sources presented in this thread are a starting point. Don't like them? Too bad for you. There is a good deal of people who look for these things and then try to get them verified, sometimes successfully. You are outside the circle.

 

It has nothing to do with me being defensive. It has everything to do with you being an irritant.

 

To make it even more clear to you, and I guess to repeat myself, you have done nothing that is constructive.

Until you actually have some basis for passing judgement, I consider any argument you make invalid.

 

Invalid. Why because I disagree with you?. Because you can't prove anything when challenged. Your sources aren't even a starting point.

[Vault]

You have no basis to judge my qualifications or anybody else's.

 

What qualifications? you said you had none.

 

You are not qualified to make this statement. Period.

 

See above.

 

Reasonably derived guesstimates work quite well. It does not make much time to prove it to yourself.

 

Do they?. I don't see Raytheon employing many guessers.

 

You wouldn't know credible evidence if it hit you in the face :)

 

Sorry I don't do personal insults.

 

Your argument is constructed on straw men. Your argument does not contain attempts at examining data. This is why your argument is logically invalid.

 

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.

 

As in congratulations for attempting to call me uneducated and inexperienced while proving you are not capable of doing anything yourself. All because you did not like the fact that Kopp is a poor source for air combat analysis ;)

 

You went about this in the most predictable way possible too: You ignored the real pilot who tried to inform you, and went after the easiest straw man you could construct.

 

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.

[GGTharos]

What qualifications? you said you had none.

 

 

 

See above.

 

I said I had no degrees.

 

 

Do they?. I don't see Raytheon employing many guessers.

And what do you think engineers are? Why do you think testing and research occurs?

 

 

Sorry I don't do personal insults.

If you want to take fact as insult ...

 

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.

Sure I can. You have made yourself an island. You are not skeptical, you are stubborn.

 

That's nothing but defensive personal insults.

It is a correct analysis.

 

I think this discussion has ran its course.

You never engaged in discussion.

 

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.

And hornet pilot. And this is precicely why everything you have said is not valid. Because your premise is 'everything anyone else says is not valid'. False premises lead to false conclusions. It is false logic. It does not work. You have so far not been able to work this one out, and it is quite simple.

[Vault]

I said I had no degrees.

 

And what do you think engineers are? Why do you think testing and research occurs?

 

I am an Engineer. Sorry, we don't do guessing.

 

Sure I can. You have made yourself an island. You are not skeptical, you are stubborn.

 

Why?. Because I don't agree with you.

 

It is a correct analysis.

 

You never engaged in discussion.

 

I'm not entertaining your fantasies.

 

And hornet pilot. And this is precicely why everything you have said is not valid. Because your premise is 'everything anyone else says is not valid'. False premises lead to false conclusions. It is false logic. It does not work. You have so far not been able to work this one out, and it is quite simple.

 

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.

[GGTharos]

I am an Engineer. Sorry, we don't do guessing.

 

Good for you to be in a field that requires no research whatsoever then.

 

Why?. Because I don't agree with you.

 

Because you have not qualified your statements.

 

I'm not entertaining your fantasies.

 

You are not engaging in discussion. The fantasies are yours. They'd be dispelled as soon as you actually put some effort in discovery.

(By the way, should I be taking it as a personal attack then? ;) )

 

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.

 

He does not need to have launched a single one of them. Flawed argument.

[Vault]

Good for you to be in a field that requires no research whatsoever then.

 

Lol you even know my job better than me.

 

Because you have not qualified your statements.

 

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

 

You are not engaging in discussion. The fantasies are yours. They'd be dispelled as soon as you actually put some effort in discovery.

(By the way, should I be taking it as a personal attack then? ;) )

 

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?.

 

He does not need to have launched a single one of them. Flawed argument.

 

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

[EtherealN]

Don't fault me for not relying on someone else's word, especially on a forum.

 

But you don't have a problem relying on the word of someone who funds himself through advertising computer games on his think-tank. There is a reason why the australian fighter community loathes Mr Kopp: he is either a sham with an agenda and his articles are doctored towards that agenda, or he is incompetent. Or both.

 

Seriously, there's defense thinktanks in my native Sweden, which has an even smaller population and defense budget than australia, that have no problem at all funding themselves without advertising for computer games on their website.

 

Would you trust medical advice from a site that funds itself through commercials by McDonalds and Penthouse? No? Then why would you take advice on the most secret stuff countries have from a regular little website that begs money off of MMO publishers to keep itself afloat? Seriously?

 

But I bet a "defense analyst" that has to get such funding is much better placed than people who have actually used the type of systems in question, right, and been privy to classified documents that neither you nor Mr Kopp has? (And yes, what the guy says about his background is real. Live with it.)

[Vault]

But you don't have a problem relying on the word of someone who funds himself through advertising computer games on his think-tank. There is a reason why the australian fighter community loathes Mr Kopp: he is either a sham with an agenda and his articles are doctored towards that agenda, or he is incompetent. Or both.

 

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"?.

 

Seriously, there's defense thinktanks in my native Sweden, which has an even smaller population and defense budget than australia, that have no problem at all funding themselves without advertising for computer games on their website.

 

IIRC He pays for that website out of his own pocket. You can't fault him for minimising the cost.

 

Would you trust medical advice from a site that funds itself through commercials by McDonalds and Penthouse? No? Then why would you take advice on the most secret stuff countries have from a regular little website that begs money off of MMO publishers to keep itself afloat? Seriously?

 

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.

 

But I bet a "defense analyst" that has to get such funding is much better placed than people who have actually used the type of systems in question, right, and been privy to classified documents that neither you nor Mr Kopp has? (And yes, what the guy says about his background is real. Live with it.)

 

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.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vault