Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Mikoyan LMFS

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:51 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:There are no VLO examples with canards.  The only two are the F-35 and the F-22 and they don't have them.  Canards are increased surface area, especially in the most important aspect being frontal.  MiG 1.44 wasn't stealthy enough.  Now the Chinese have picked up on a flawed design and taken it to the next level of folly.  The MKI picked up the J-20 on radar at a couple hundred kms.
    Your MoD and contributors say there are no invisible planes and that they can see F-22 and F-35 from far away. Ultra stealth drone was detected and captured over Iran, B-2 modified for low level penetration of Russian air space. US gets mad over S-400 operating together with F-35. To be quite honest, for me VLO could as well not exist all together. Do not buy the fairy tale anymore.

    Contrary to Su-57, J-20 has been praised for its stealth by Western experts quoted in the media. But you say it is not so because of canards and because Indians say they can see them, without a shred of evidence that I know or clarifications in what conditions this has happened (we know the J-20s fly with Luneburg reflectors quite often for instance) So in summary you believe IAF but not Russian MoD?

    From aspects where enemy can be normally observing, canards will mostly reflect perpendicularly to its sweep plane, as wings do and therefore they are aligned with them in designs considering signature management. Are wings to be suppressed also because they are unstealthy? What about tail planes, should they be suppressed too?

    US has plenty of VLO proposals with canards (see below). The fact that none made it to the serial production could be due to stealth but also to other reasons, i.e. program cancellations (NATF) or the fact that in unstable planes tail elevators do not always reduce overall lift but the other way around...

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Natf-210
    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 X-32-a11
    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Cddr_m10

    This not to consider Swedish 5G proposal and TF-X from the ones I can remember right now.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:52 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:I'dont need to win you over as you over as none off us is an experienced aerospace engineer with turbojet specialization.   lol1  lol1  lol1  
    Yes you should try to convince me with good arguments, otherwise what is the point of discussing??

    this works both sides you know bounce bounce bounce




    It it more complex, is it heavier then without VSTOL and...  ?   dunno  dunno  dunno
    Weight and complexity affect performance. No more questions Sir

    Su-35S 17,5 tons or Su-57 18,5 tons are poor performers then




    No I don't mean that. Take the Yak-41. It has a main engine for horizontal flight. And then, ADDITIONALLY to that, two engines in the frontal section of the fuselage to create vertical lift. In order to have a STVOL without substantial downsides due to extra weight and space you would need the vertical lift in the front to be used also for horizontal flight.

    sure, Alfa Romeo is poor car only me and sexy girl. You prefer such Ford F-150, 3 barrels of moonshine, bushel of corn and 20 chickins in back. In cabin : you, 2 cousins and your wife (actually a cousin too) from Tennessee. lol1 lol1 lol1


    Weight and complexity is the price you have to pay for agility, and landing requirements.



    Harrier managed to do it... and it was nevertheless a subsonic, crappy, unreliable plane.

    can you quote stats of Harrier about unreliability? I'd lvoe to see them. Suspect Suspect Suspect

    crappy? oh well beauty is in the eye of the beholder Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil





    Without a lift concept that solves this, I am not seeing any reasonable way of claiming the STOVL can be every bit as good as the STOBAR/CATOBAR. But well, above you already admit it will be heavier and more complex so we agree... by some miracle

    CATOBAR si good when you have cato Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Russians didnt choose this path for a reason. VSTOL can be easily as good as CTOL in the same class. You can have more weight but much better T/W. Where's the problem?

    BTW MiG-29k has 4500kg max payload. 11 tons weight 2x90Kn (takeoff only) . Do you suggest that same wight class (Yak-41 -11,500kg) VSTOL with 200-250 kN would have worse speed/agility? unlikely. Payload perhaps or range depending on requirements.



    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:24 pm

    @Gunship: OK I give up, more weight = more agility, STOVL = more thrust, up=down, more = less. Whatever you want

    Weight and complexity is the price you have to pay for agility,
    VSTOL can be easily as good as CTOL in the same class. You can have more weight but much better T/W. Where's the problem?

    respekt respekt respekt
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:10 pm

    LMFS wrote:@Gunship: OK I give up, {}
    Weight and complexity is the price you have to pay for agility,
    VSTOL can be easily as good as CTOL in the same class. You can have more weight but much better T/W. Where's the problem?


    I am sorry you're right. MiG-35 must bee a poor performer comparing to J-39. It is almost 50% heavier and more complex.  
    Your logic is undisputed in this case What a Face What a Face What a Face

    light fighters...........empty.weight


    MiG-35.........................11,500.kg

    J-39 Gripen....................8,000.kg


    In real world however neither empty mass nor complexity are only parameter defining flight performance.  

    P.S. Su-57 is 18,500kg then  barely fires 210% of J-39 empty mass !!!   sunny sunny sunny
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2910
    Points : 3788
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:53 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Your MoD and contributors say there are no invisible planes and that they can see F-22 and F-35 from far away. Ultra stealth drone was detected and captured over Iran, B-2 modified for low level penetration of Russian air space. US gets mad over S-400 operating together with F-35. To be quite honest, for me VLO could as well not exist all together. Do not buy the fairy tale anymore.

    No one said they were invisible, I said they were VLO. That means that their radar cross section is significantly smaller than anything else out there. There is another aspect of stealth involving the infrared signature, as optics get better and better this is becoming an important feature.

    Contrary to Su-57, J-20 has been praised for its stealth by Western experts quoted in the media. But you say it is not so because of canards and because Indians say they can see them, without a shred of evidence that I know or clarifications in what conditions this has happened (we know the J-20s fly with Luneburg reflectors quite often for instance) So in summary you believe IAF but not Russian MoD?

    I haven't read anyone praising the J-20's stealth, most analysts don't even take it seriously. The Chief of the IAF says they have detected it far across the border, there is no reason to call him a liar. The Russian MoD said they couldn't detect the French flight of Rafale's launching missiles over our bases, I take that as fact. They also said a French frigate fired on our Il-20, I also take that as fact.

    From aspects where enemy can be normally observing, canards will mostly reflect perpendicularly to its sweep plane, as wings do and therefore they are aligned with them in designs considering signature management. Are wings to be suppressed also because they are unstealthy? What about tail planes, should they be suppressed too?

    The canards will cant to the angle that provides the best flight performance of the aircraft. They do not cant based on the best angle needed for stealth. It is sacrificing stealth for performance.

    US has plenty of VLO proposals with canards (see below). The fact that none made it to the serial production could be due to stealth but also to other reasons, i.e. program cancellations (NATF) or the fact that in unstable planes tail elevators do not always reduce overall lift but the other way around...

    The stealthiest design proposal is the Dassault SCAF which has no canards or tailfins. The stealthiest flight form ever developed is the flying wing which is why the B-2 is so massive yet has incredibly low RCS and why all of the proposed stealth UCAVs are flying wings.

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:02 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:I haven't read anyone praising the J-20's stealth, most analysts don't even take it seriously.  The Chief of the IAF says they have detected it far across the border, there is no reason to call him a liar.  

    and Su-35 tracked F-22 so what?
    BTW didnt IAF cancel FGFA deal because of poor performance too?



    The Russian MoD said they couldn't detect the French flight of Rafale's launching missiles over our bases, I take that as fact.  They also said a French frigate fired on our Il-20, I also take that as fact.  

    I'd appreciate sources,I've never heard about that. BTW Rafale has canards.  lol1  lol1  lol1



    From aspects where enemy can be normally observing, canards will mostly reflect perpendicularly to its sweep plane, as wings do and therefore they are aligned with them in designs considering signature management. Are wings to be suppressed also because they are unstealthy? What about tail planes, should they be suppressed too?
    The canards will cant to the angle that provides the best flight performance of the aircraft.  They do not cant based on the best angle needed for stealth.  It is sacrificing stealth for performance.  

    and what's wrong with that? stealth is not main requirement for vgen fighters in US. ISnt it?


    The stealthiest design proposal is the Dassault SCAF which has no canards or tailfins.

    That's from Airbus presentation.

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Ob_a84754_ob-7dd28c-scaf



     The stealthiest flight form ever developed is the flying wing which is why the B-2 is so massive yet has incredibly low RCS and why all of the proposed stealth UCAVs are flying wings.


    B2 is perfect example to prove you're wrong.

    B2 is subsonic what is unacceptable for a fighter.  
    B2 with its size and W/T = 0,2 and  is not able to maneuver. Mind that all delta UCAVs ar low speed,not maneuverable. With supersonic your observability falls drastically.[/quote]
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2910
    Points : 3788
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:31 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    and Su-35 tracked F-22 so what?
    BTW didnt IAF cancel FGFA deal because of poor performance too?

    The difference is the J-20 was picked up by radar at extreme range, the F-22 was picked up by optics much closer.

    I'd appreciate sources,I've never heard about that. BTW Rafale has canards.  lol1  lol1  lol1

    Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.

    http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12171300@egNews

    French MoD infographic shows it going right over our AD zone.

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 B867b5f0-4078-11e8-8751-5f219dbd2e0d_1


    and what's wrong with that? stealth is not main requirement for vgen fighters in US. ISnt it?

    If you want to create a VLO fighter there is plenty wrong with that.  


    That's from Airbus presentation.

    Airbus was not selected as prime contractor but Dassault and this is their design.





    B2 is perfect example to prove you're wrong.

    B2 is subsonic what is unacceptable for a fighter.  
    B2 with its size and W/T = 0,2 and  is not able to maneuver. Mind that all delta UCAVs ar low speed,not maneuverable. With supersonic your observability falls drastically.

    Regardless the two 6th gen stealth fighter designs from Boeing and Dassault have no canards or tailfins.  They are getting as close to a flying wing as a fighter possibly can be.  It is the stealthiest design out there.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3563
    Points : 3555
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:52 pm

    Regardless the two 6th gen stealth fighter designs from Boeing and Dassault have no canards or tailfins.  They are getting as close to a flying wing as a fighter possibly can be.  It is the stealthiest design out there.

    And the most expensive...

    In one vs on scenario with tge same budget, you can have a country like france or gemany with less than 100 5th generation fighters versus a country with 100-200 mig 35 + tens of iskander + 100pantsir to intercept anything those 5th generation fighter will launch + cruise missiles to destroy enemy fighters on the ground.

    I choose the second country for sure.

    Without US protection all the NATO countries are fucked up against russia or china. No matter what gen of fighter they have.

    France launched twelves missile out of 112 with more launch plateforms than missiles. That sucks.

    And again your map is for people who have no idea where Syria is. It is impossible they took the risk to fire the missile above russian's heads. They probably went through israel or lebanon or even turkey. They have a range of 600km so they can easily go around the syrian coast. They could have launched them west of Cyprus thus being out of range of russian radars.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3648
    Points : 3630
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:40 pm

    That infographic is pointless.

    No, it didn't fly over the Russian bases. Actually, try pointing out the base within that pic. And that pics arrows show it eating up a fraction of total land, when the missiles are probably about as long as my Ford focus.

    Russian ground AD without AWACS to track, can only engage such missiles roughly 20km.

    And yes, Russians we're much aware of the French missiles launch, cause they mentioned it. And mentioned to having pieces of failed ones too.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:55 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    The difference is the J-20 was picked up by radar at extreme range, the F-22 was picked up by optics much closer.

    I've heard this vid but never heard about an actual distance. Why do you assume extreme range?
    BTW Optics can see from ~100kms and tracking for Su-30 is ~ 200km max.




    I'd appreciate sources,I've never heard about that. BTW Rafale has canards.  lol1  lol1  lol1
    French MoD infographic shows it going right over our AD zone [/quote]

    Ekhm I believe Russian MoD more than French press (infographics was for  le parisien)  What a Face  What a Face  What a Face

    So we have now 2 options

    1) French ig is correct then
    Russian radars suck. Every: S-400 , S-300 and navy radars cannot detect old canard fighter. Ergo: Russian cannot build a decent radar.


    Then what Israeli F-35s are afraid of oldish S-300 delivered t Syria?  dunno  dunno  dunno


    Other possibility : No French fighters were there.

    lol1 lol1 lol1




    and what's wrong with that? stealth is not main requirement for vgen fighters in US. ISnt it?

    If you want to create a VLO fighter there is plenty wrong with that.
     


    JSF F-35 is very poor fighter but good  VLO, do you suggest then Russia should sacrifice performance for VLO?





    B2 is perfect example to prove you're wrong.
    B2 is subsonic what is unacceptable for a fighter.  
    B2 with its size and W/T = 0,2 and  is not able to maneuver. Mind that all delta UCAVs ar low speed,not maneuverable. With supersonic your observability falls drastically.

    Regardless the two 6th gen stealth fighter designs from Boeing and Dassault have no canards or tailfins.  They are getting as close to a flying wing as a fighter possibly can be.  It is the stealthiest design out there.[/quote]

    As long as you dont sacrifice maneuverability I dont see canards required. Canards for me is not objective but  means to get to maneuverable fighter. Werent drones to be able to fight with 15g? Let's wait which concept wins competition. For next ~10 years we can only guess respekt respekt respekt

    BTW Tempes clearly has tail fins.
    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Tempest


    Lockheed concept too
    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 LM-F-X-clear_zps56a52ef5



    Boeing FA/XX proposal (Navy fighter) has canards (image released in2013 tho)...
    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 New-FA-XX-concept-art



    and now old 2015 Voyenna Prieomka from TV Zvezda. KRET singed vid. 6th gen fighter concept with ....canards




    [
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:44 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:I am sorry you're right. MiG-35 must bee a poor performer comparing to J-39. It is almost 50% heavier and more complex.  
    Your logic is undisputed in this case What a Face What a Face What a Face

    light fighters...........empty.weight




    MiG-35.........................11,500.kg

    J-39 Gripen....................8,000.kg


    In real world however neither empty mass nor complexity are only parameter defining flight performance.  

    P.S. Su-57 is 18,500kg then  barely fires 210% of J-39 empty mass !!!   sunny sunny sunny
    Sure, and a Su-26 much lighter than the JAS-39 and more agile.  This argument is so absurd that I cannot even honestly answer to it, sorry man!

    @Vladimir79
    You are ruling canards as "non stealth-compatible" and the J-20 as fake VLO based on nothing more than National Interest-level hearsay and without any physical backing, cannot take that seriously. BTW, what is VLO, exactly? It is mostly interesting that your MoD is calling that scam out as and you still taking the US propaganda for a fact. Your experts are saying the signatures from Syria confirm their estimations about Western models' RCS (0.1 to 0.5 m2 for the F-22) and you say they cannot even detect a Rafale over their heads...

    By the way, from your article:
    There were no cruise missiles entering the Russian AD responsibility area. The Russian air defence systems were not applied.
    The Russian air defence systems at the Khmeimim and Tartus air base timely located and controlled all naval and air launches made by the USA and the UK.

    Instead you believe French MoD infographic. So we infer UK Scalps can be easily detected but the French ones can dance circles around Russians heads undetected!?

    If you read further you see no French air launched missiles are accounted for, so the sentence below is rather a denial that Rafale participated in the attack than a reckoning that they are invisible to Russian radars:
    Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.
    Would be huge news for Dassault, really, since their planes are not alleged to be even remotely within the category of "stealth" (and have some nice canards actually!)

    So back to the topic, canards are airfoils exactly as wings are, which have also moving parts and in fact more joints than the canards, some of then even on leading edges. Of course, the most stealth plane would not have canards, tails or... wings.
    Out of curiosity, are the LEVCONS in Su-57 and new Airbus design also incompatible with VLO? And the leading edge flaps on F-22? What makes them so different from canards in regards of RCS?
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2910
    Points : 3788
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:09 am

    miketheterrible wrote:That infographic is pointless.

    The infographic is published by ECPAD, a division of the French MoD which makes it official.

    No, it didn't fly over the Russian bases. Actually, try pointing out the base within that pic. And that pics arrows show it eating up a fraction of total land, when the missiles are probably about as long as my Ford focus.

    Clearly it did.

    Russian ground AD without AWACS to track, can only engage such missiles roughly 20km.

    The A-50 was up all day and night.

    And yes, Russians we're much aware of the French missiles launch, cause they mentioned it. And mentioned to having pieces of failed ones too.

    Our MoD said they did not detect them, it is not surprising since they are stealth terrain hugging missiles.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:53 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:[

    Our MoD said they did not detect them, it is not surprising since they are stealth terrain hugging missiles.

    so in you opinion Russians cannot make any decent radars. And French are so marvelous that 80s fighters are undetected ? wow
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:19 am

    LMFS wrote:Sure, and a Su-26 much lighter than the JAS-39 and more agile.  This argument is so absurd that I cannot even honestly answer to it, sorry man!


    I dotn take it personally i just think you've lost in your reasoning. Onetime you say T/W counts (what is true but not only), then you say VSTOL   is heavier that the same fighter without VSOTL ability (what is true) then you are reasoning : because F-35 is mad ein 2 versions VSTOL has alwasy suck.


    Yes lets stop here.   thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    You clearly cannot mentally digest that VSTOL can be maneuverable at the same level then comparable class fighter with CTOL (No, F-35 is the same model not comparable)

    BTW  LMFS is ever comes true unlikely will be 5gen.  in all cournties 2030s is time of 6th gen. Whoever (LM, Boeing or KRET has been  talking about 6gen you can hear repeatable stuff:
    they say long range, speed, lasers/microwaves ,
    hypersonic with  with 2Ma+ supercuise
    "couple times  greater" overload.

    This all implies new super-complexity, gen engines,    Heavier then current weight fighters  and with super maneuverability.  


    Perhaps in one you're right tho.  dunno  dunno  dunno The real program VSTOL amid 6th gen requirements might not be light after all
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2910
    Points : 3788
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:41 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    so in you opinion Russians cannot make any decent radars. And French are so marvelous that 80s fighters are undetected ? wow

    I am going off of what the MoD said, they weren't detected. If you don't believe it argue with them.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:52 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    so in you opinion Russians cannot make any decent radars. And French are so marvelous that 80s fighters are undetected ? wow

    I am going off of what the MoD said, they weren't detected.  If you don't believe it argue with them.  

    I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
    It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are? dunno dunno dunno

    OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2910
    Points : 3788
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:56 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
    It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are? dunno dunno dunno

    OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.

    Take off your blinders. It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected. It was the Russian MoD.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:45 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:I dotn take it personally i just think you've lost in your reasoning. Onetime you say T/W counts (what is true but not only), then you say VSTOL   is heavier that the same fighter without VSOTL ability (what is true) then you are reasoning : because F-35 is mad ein 2 versions VSTOL has alwasy suck.
    Good, because I don't mean it personally. But you are so deep in denial that cannot even understand the gross logical contradictions you are incurring in order to defend your dear STOVL concept.

    Take the Yak-141. Now remove the engines for vertical lift and put fuel in its place. Would the range not be more and the empty weight less, for God's sake???

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3648
    Points : 3630
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:39 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
    It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are? dunno dunno dunno

    OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.

    Take off your blinders.  It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected.  It was the Russian MoD.  

    Yet Russian mod said that French, US and UK missiles were shot down.

    So how can they say they were shot down, if they didn't see them at all?

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201804141063558487-syria-air-defense-forces-analysis/

    I think they are referring to the claims the jets potential launches. They saw the missiles. And France is lying about their jets.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 231
    Points : 227
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Azi on Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:11 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
    It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are? dunno dunno dunno

    OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.

    Take off your blinders.  It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected.  It was the Russian MoD.  
    I never heard or read from Russian MoD that they didn't detect the incoming CM! The assault was known to Russian MoD hours before!

    Really Mirage2000 is soo stealth that A-50, S-300 and S-400 couldn't detect it? By the way...engagement range of Scalp/Storm Shadow is 450 km, so hard to track the planes for ground based radar, but should be no problem for A-50. The RCS of Rafale is not that low and Mirage2000 should be clear visible!!! By the way...Rafale has the characteristic that to US-Experts make "stealth" really complicated...Canards!

    Rafale has a RCS of 1,25 sqm, it's not bad but not really "stealth". It is said that Rafale can "lower" it's RCS with EW equiptment, but come on with good EW you can make Mig 21 the deadliest stealth plane. And it's not known how the EW equiptment works on newest Russian AD Systems, that should be resistent to EW.

    But what is clearly known to me ist that Russian PR of MoD is catastrophic, because the same source produce different facts and stories! Sometimes I think they write faster, than they think o.O Best example is with the shot down Il-20, first they said it was a syrian missile, later they blather something about a french ship firing missiles (yes it was a test, but had nothing to do with Il-20), but it was the fault of Israel (LOL still a syrian missile) pwnddunno .
    At all too many stories makes statements from Russian MoD too often implausible!!!

    If Russian AD Systems are really soo bad, US and western allies would have bombed the shit out of russian presence in Syria hundred times right now, they know a conflict here will have really no results on global scale. In reality western countries are really careful in their strikes in Syria,but acting more and more aggressive, testing out russian capabilities. And if S-300 is that shity too, Israel would no be concerned about deliveries to Syria.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:53 am

    Vladimir79 wrote: Take off your blinders.  It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected.  It was the Russian MoD.  

    likewise Sir, and only French MoD said they were there. Am I right? Russian MoD said there were not detected. And I believe them. You cannot detect something that simply s not there.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:58 am

    @Azi were you a physicist or something right? welcome welcome welcome

    perhaps you could tell me why KRET guy said for Tass that microvave guns can be used only by drones (more precise fighters in drone mode) because it is dangerous for pilots?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:15 pm

    LMFS wrote:Take the Yak-141. Now remove the engines for vertical lift and put fuel in its place. Would the range not be more and the empty weight less???

    it would of course!  I never claimed otherwise. This is a trade-off with other qualities. That is what Ive always meant.


    and now please tell me
    Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?






    LMFS wrote: Good, because I don't mean it personally.

    Glad to hear it, Sir. DAT would be if I go personal  lol1  lol1  lol1

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Cgqg11jUArSAHHEdAADGhgBkuUY301



    [
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:35 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and now please tell me
    Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?
    The answer is yes, did you need my help for that?

    BTW, in regards of VLO and in news from today:

    Speaking to Sputnik, defense observers suggested that there is little doubt that the US Air Force would like to use this opportunity to learn more about the S-300s in the field using the F-22, a plane specially created to suppress and destroy high-tech air defenses. However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they will actually have the freedom to do so, Sergei Sudakov, a professor at the Academy of Military Sciences, said.

    “The US strategy of using Raptors against air defense networks looks something like this: One or several F-22s enter undetected into the enemy’s radar coverage area, switch on their electronic suppression systems and start jamming enemy detection and guidance systems. At the same time, the planes carry out strikes against radars, launchers and command posts,” the academic explained.

    “Following the breakthrough, a second echelon of fighter-bombers is activated to complete the rout of enemy forces. Paralyzed by the stealth attacks, the enemy air defenses are no longer able to put up any resistance. But such operations seem smooth only on paper,” Sudakov noted.

    According to the expert, even if the ground-based radars do not see the F-22s, the plane will still make its presence known as soon as turns on its on-board radio-electronic suppression system. Once that happens, ground-based control systems will be able to localize the radiation source, subsequently pointing to the aircraft’s location and launching an anti-aircraft missile to chase after it.

    In this scenario, the only thing a Raptor pilot can do in complete safety is to determine the approximate zone of operation of enemy air defenses. But these, in the case of the S-300s, are mobile systems, and can quickly move and deploy in a new location. In that sense, there is no such thing as a completely invisible aircraft.

    “The F-22’s low radar visibility is a fact,” military journalist Mikhail Khodaryonok, a 29 year veteran of the Soviet and Russian air defenses, said.

    “But suggesting that this aircraft is invisible to the S-300’s radar systems is a huge exaggeration. In the S-band frequency, it truly is barely visible, which, on the other hand, does not exclude the possibility of firing on it. In the VHF band frequency, for instance, the Raptor can be seen very well,” the retired colonel stressed
    .
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2910
    Points : 3788
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:24 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:

    Yet Russian mod said that French, US and UK missiles were shot down.

    So how can they say they were shot down, if they didn't see them at all?

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201804141063558487-syria-air-defense-forces-analysis/

    I think they are referring to the claims the jets potential launches. They saw the missiles. And France is lying about their jets.

    Russian MoD said the French were not detected nor were any of their missiles crossing our AD. We never saw them to shoot them down. There were Syrian casualties at the strike site West of Homs so they did hit their target. What MoD said was we detected US and UK launches, what the Syrians shot down are only claims from Syria. They were not connected to our IADs as that is only just happening after the Il-20 incident.

    Sponsored content

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 11 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:56 am