rail gun

J6P wrote:HAHAHAHAHA.

Dude, a belly land that does not pierce the turbine engine is your example?

A turbine is a gigantic pressure vessel filled with extremely HOT gas. When it gets pierced by shrapnel it releases said HOT gas into the surrounding fuel tanks and KAAAAAABOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!

Ok, now i KNOW you´re either an idiot or utterly ignorant.

Since you apparently don´t know about the event i referred to, did you even think about trying to look up what happened, what the damages to the plane were?

Why do you think lots of people around the world were impressed?

When MiG-29 and Su-27 were designed, someone came up with the idea of making the fueltanks not explode unless completely and utterly wrecked. They were quite successful.

Tenshinai wrote:
Yes i do say so. No joke, no hype.

F-22 is more advanced by a fair stretch(mostly), but it was messed up with stupid requirements combining to make it much less effective than it could have been, and adding to that all the crap in it that doesn´t work means that it is dangerously close to being hangar queens.

Shall we compare the pertinent parts?

Radar, F-22 got screwed over because of the stupid notion that using a weaker radar could allow the plane to radiate and still not be detected, which(predictably for anyone with a brain) turned out to be bullshit. The sad part is that the F-22 COULD have had the best fighter radar ever.

Datalink, again the F-22 got screwed over by the idea that stealth overrode everything else, last i heard they were still arguing over wether it would get a nerfed "stealthy datalink" or have the amazing ability to turn it off/on and on passive only. Or if the beancounters won, wouldn´t get a proper datalink at all.

Well, Tenshai, all you did in your post was prove you do not have a clue how RADAR works.

For starters you cannot turn a RADAR on-off. Well, you can, but it is not necessary(see next few paragraphs). It has to be warm otherwise the data you collect is garbage as electronics require a nice constant temp due to a little thing called thermal drift. So passive semi state is a minimum for ALL RADAR's otherwise you now are utterly blind. You are not radiating in this state, so those also listening on passive will not have a clue you are there either, but if the correct frequency hits your partially active dish it will reflect a larger signature than true OFF.

Why? Lets go with the obvious first. Even a passive dish/AESA array of mini dishes at the front of your fighters nose is a massive radar reflector. There is no "OFF" switch for this physical problem. Going to AESA actually helps in a gigantic way as in the passive collect mode, one can turn the majority of the AESA small RADARS away from the clear part of the nose cone. This limits your forward signature by a massive extent. Why does this work for better passive RADAR reflection? Due to how a RADAR dome functions.

What I am about to say is no secret. Everyone building RADAR domes has known this since the 60s.

RADAR domes are made from specially oriented glass fibers and special epoxy resins. Allows RADAR frequencies out and in. Fiber orientation and spacial placement works on a spherical concept. This is why on commercial airliners the nose is a perfect section of a circle. Well they try their best anyways. This is also why on a fighter aircraft their RADAR ability to lock up a missile off axis is down right poor even if they can steer their radar and partially see an enemy on said RADAR. Resolution is great forward, degrading to the land of abysmal the farther one rotates from 0 degrees. Due to Aerodynamic restraints on fighter noses, M > 1 needs, they cannot use a spherical nose. The fiber orientation allows for a small window forward and other windows to the side generally, but usually at less than optimum.

Now, bring in AESA RADAR. They are now able to steer the hundreds of small RADARs. This allows the designer to actually "see" through the non spherical orientation of the glass fibers by aligning all the mini rails and klystrons(frequency/phase) through the forward side of their nose cone. What this also means is that the F-22 RADAR while being less "powerful" is actually far superior to the ones you are claiming. You also have to admit that this AESA RADAR was developed in the 80's! It has been 25 years since this aircraft was developed. 20 for the actual integration. Honestly, railing against 25 year old tech does not give your arguments much credence.

Besides, there is the little invention called a wrench and socket. Get this, you unbolt its 25 year old AESA RADAR, and put a new one in...

Still needs top/bottom/side RADAR though. Lets face it, F22 is a 25 year old airplane before true computer SIGINT processing power had been compressed into the size of your cell phone. Technology marches on. The Typhoon was the beneficiary of being 10 years younger plane than the 22. Why the F-35 is still bumbling along. They do not want to release it. Has nothing to do with so called "mechanical problems." Has everything to do with the vast transformation of SIGINT processing and very high S/N silicon IR sensors. The plane is not really needed at the moment so it has been kept in development software land. Keep "updating" it. Same goes for the Chinese J series and the new Russian fighters. Everyone is now aware it is more about spherical awareness and computer support than the airframe in question.

Tenshinai wrote:When MiG-29 and Su-27 were designed, someone came up with the idea of making the fueltanks not explode unless completely and utterly wrecked. They were quite successful.

Look up self ignition temperature of Kerosene.

Now I know you are ignorant and delusional. Thank you for making my argument very easy to state.

Cya.

Oh, yea, since it seems you still cannot read. Counter missiles are perfectly viable if you are not worried about super sonic Aerodynamics. Once again you failed reading my first paragraph. Once again, you think using monster normal sized missiles all facing forward with piss poor INS that can not stay oriented in an initial tumble/spin when going after a missile behind is a benchmark.

Expand your narrow vision.

Enjoy

PS. I got a huge laugh out of your ECM "rebuttal" paragraphs where you stated the word BLIND in about 3 different ways.

All is now clear. The comment "I suppose this is where I break out my Aeronautical engineering degree and tell you you don't know shit." has informed me as to the dynamics of this discussion. I used to be the ring master for about 250 aeronautical engineers, deeply respected their technical brilliance and integrity, but had some interesting times working with their interpersonal skills. One explanation is that the brain has modular plug ins and the same single socket is needed for each skill set so one has to choose.

There is a great mp3 of a paediatrician telling a new mother that her new born son has all his fingers/toes etc but. She hysterically runs down all the genetic challenges getting no as an answer until the doctor sadly says it's worse, much worse, he's an aeronautical engineer. Exit screaming.

Well, Tenshai, all you did in your post was prove you do not have a clue how RADAR works.

It´s rather pathetic how you keep saying things like that and then go on ranting about something i already know perfectly fine.

What this also means is that the F-22 RADAR while being less "powerful" is actually far superior to the ones you are claiming.

Ah but here you run into some problems, you see, even with the most optimistic "estimates" of its range, you end up around 240km, with about 200km being more realistic except against BIG targets. With something around 80-180km range against stealthy targets depending on conditions.

While the older PESA in the Su-31, by virtue of not trying to be "silent" but instead puts out as much power as it can, allows it a ~300km range against small targets(3-6 sqm RCS), over 400km vs BIG targets and 100-250km against stealthy targets, greatly depending on detection conditions.

Which of those two is "more powerful"? Oh the F-22 radar is more advanced and all sure, but saying "more powerful" about either is unrealistic, both have their good sides.


Did you know that Sweden dropped development of its Mark 5 radar upgrade for Gripen?
Instead dropping the PS-05/A completely in favour of a Selex ES-05 for the -NG model.
Both of those are AESA.

The Mark 5 however was LPI. And with the small size of the radar, LPI cut too harshly into performance, and was one of the reasons it was cut.

You also have to admit that this AESA RADAR was developed in the 80's! It has been 25 years since this aircraft was developed. 20 for the actual integration. Honestly, railing against 25 year old tech does not give your arguments much credence.

Perhaps you should keep yourself better updated? The latest upgrade for the AN/APG-77 is from 2005 and included in the F-22s from "Lot 5" and onwards.

Your credentials are already in the shitters, that was just one more rather blatant *oops* for your tab.

Still needs top/bottom/side RADAR though.

Doesn´t work very well. As shown by all who have tried.
Which was why the most successful trial was when the Russians used their PIR gear.

Everyone is now aware it is more about spherical awareness and computer support than the airframe in question.

Funny how the design teams tend to not agree with you.

Looks like the B-52 with avionics upgrades might be the ultimate fighter of the 21st century.

J6P wrote:While I am on the F-20 side of the argument as the better aircraft , I would not bring up the ability to use the AIM-7 on the 16 as an example. Effectively switching out already existing missile racks and connectors is hardly something to beat your chest about... I would also not bring up how cheap the 16 is/are. The 16 never used to be cheap. Only when the USA started offing off its outdated almost end of life 16A's did prices plummet.

Anymore, it is the avionics inside an airplane that count. Not the frame itself. Effectively all the frames are identical when ignoring stealth and supersonic cruise. An adverse puff of wind will blow them all up the same. With IR multi pixel sensors, the only true defense is shooting the missile out of the sky or praying you can somehow dodge it/them. Last I checked, fighters do not spout counter missiles yet. I will bet you money, Israel will have them on their planes soon. Already working on their tanks and it is only a matter of time till they put the same system on their airplanes after a weight reduction program. The laser stuff on Helicpoters is cute against antiquated junk MANPADS, but it is simple matter of time, assuming the world is not already past, when it will be a complete race between Laser power(burning out sensors) and S/N ratio of the sensors in question.

To house said LASERS, aerodynamics are going to take an enormous hit. I suppose the entire trailing edge, belly, top, televons, etc on an aircraft could be turned into an AESA radar able to attack sensors on incoming missiles, but I doubt it.

Where tech is today and for sure where it is going tomorrow, ultimate "fighter" is probably an A-10 equivalent. Pretty much a flying tank able to deal with multiple IR equipped SAM's. Armored bomb truck. Armored missile carrier. Unless there is a giant leap in stealth tech sometime soon. I see fighters as the penultimate requirement for operational airforce as a passing fad.

Running out of popcorn here...

Michael Everett wrote:Running out of popcorn here...

ROFLOL so make some more

Make that two portions.

Mike.