Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Disinformation. It was just a J-20Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Chinese copy of the Checkmate?)
[uhttps://servimg.com/view/20346361/2507][imhttps://i.servimg.com/u/f81/20/34/63/61/img_2288.jpg[/img][/url]
Broski wrote:RTN wrote:How does a Russian OTH radar placed in Russia help to detect targets in Syria or Afghanistan?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radarVoronezh-DM (77Ya6-DM) works in the decimeter range (UHF) and was designed by NPK NIIDAR. It has a range of up to 10,000 km and is capable of simultaneously tracking 500 objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armavir_Radar_StationArmavir Radar Station is an early warning radar station near Armavir in Krasnodar Krai, Russia. It is a key part of the Russian early warning system against missile attack and is run by the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces. There are two radars here - one faces south west and one south east. They provide radar coverage of the Middle East.
Distance between Armavir Radar Station and Syria
Distance between Armavir Radar Station and Afghanistan
Broski likes this post
Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Chinese copy of the Checkmate?)
[url=https://servimg.com/v]
Gomig-21 and Hole like this post
NORAD is testing a OTH radar. Jindalee OTH radar is operational in Australia.JohninMK wrote:Doesn't NORAD, Filingdales and Oman have US made equivalents?
RTN wrote:NORAD is testing a OTH radar. Jindalee OTH radar is operational in Australia.JohninMK wrote:Doesn't NORAD, Filingdales and Oman have US made equivalents?
U.S Air Force (AN/FPS-118 OTH-B), U.S Navy ( AN/TPS-71 ROTHR ) have all installed OTH radar.
LOLzzzz...Isos wrote:Useless. It's not Russia that send its carriers and air force invade other countries. There is no russian or chinese base around US.
Russian and chinese radars are useful because they have hundreds of US and nato bases around them. And western keep saying they should attack them.
The only thing useless, is your comment.RTN wrote:LOLzzzz...Isos wrote:Useless. It's not Russia that send its carriers and air force invade other countries. There is no russian or chinese base around US.
Russian and chinese radars are useful because they have hundreds of US and nato bases around them. And western keep saying they should attack them.
If "hundreds of US and nato bases" are around them why do they need a OTH radar. Any ground based radar would do
RTN wrote:LOLzzzz...
If "hundreds of US and nato bases" are around them why do they need a OTH radar. Any ground based radar would do
Big_Gazza, kvs, ALAMO, Isos, miketheterrible and Mir like this post
kvs, LMFS, Mir and Broski like this post
GarryB, medo and Gomig-21 like this post
Hole likes this post
GarryB wrote:
I would reserve judgement on manouver performance till I see the Checkmate in the air, but despite having a similar layout to the American design it is a significantly slimmer aircraft... I am trying to keep an open mind... the checkmate certainly has enormous potential for the future.
Daniel_Admassu wrote:GarryB wrote:
I would reserve judgement on manouver performance till I see the Checkmate in the air, but despite having a similar layout to the American design it is a significantly slimmer aircraft... I am trying to keep an open mind... the checkmate certainly has enormous potential for the future.
One concern that I have with the maneuverability outlook for the Checkmate is the positioning of the intake. Modern military avionics relies on negative stability for higher maneuverability. That means the flight surfaces don't tend to settle on a preset 'local minimum' profile, as with commercial aircraft but rather tend to veer away, almost like car wheels out of alignment. The overall weight and thrust distribution along the axis (specifically longitudinal) is also important.
One requirement, if I remember correctly, is locating the intake and thrust points as close to the mid section of the aircraft as possible, somewhat like the flankers (which, by the way, are the best unstable tri-plane designs out there). This tends to reduce the overall natural pitch stabilization that any aerodynamic object may tend to settle on.
With an intake so far to the front, the Checkmate might lose some of its longitudinal instability. My guess is that Sukhoi might have prioritized stealth over performance here.
LMFS likes this post
Lennox wrote:
IIRC, longitudinal static stability has to do with the position of the center of gravity (more forward = more stable), rather than the position of intake and thrust, no?
Daniel_Admassu wrote:Well, what is required here is the opposite - instability. That way, the aircraft will always be 'on edge', tending to roll or pitch. This makes it highly agile. In older generation aircraft it would be too much work for the pilot to constantly compensate with manual controls and thus was not implemented. But with computerized flight and envelope control, it has successfully been used on fighter jets.
The weight distribution requirement for instability is not fully determined by the center of gravity alone. Rather, most of the weight itself should be concentrated as close as possible to the CoG. And that center should be midway between intake and exhaust, not the geometrical center of the plane. That being said, this is the ideal condition. I don't think any design has achieved it since other priorities exist for fighter aircraft other than flight performance.
Isos wrote:Well they advertize it as a 8g aircraft when other 4.5 gen fighter are 9g abd can even go to 12g if really needed.
But who care it will be good to launch missiles against f-15/typhoon/f-18 in bvr without being detected at long range, still more manoeuvrable than f-35 and can drop pgm for the price of 20 million $.
That's still exeptional.
One concern that I have with the maneuverability outlook for the Checkmate is the positioning of the intake. Modern military avionics relies on negative stability for higher maneuverability. That means the flight surfaces don't tend to settle on a preset 'local minimum' profile, as with commercial aircraft but rather tend to veer away, almost like car wheels out of alignment. The overall weight and thrust distribution along the axis (specifically longitudinal) is also important.
With an intake so far to the front, the Checkmate might lose some of its longitudinal instability. My guess is that Sukhoi might have prioritized stealth over performance here.
Well they advertize it as a 8g aircraft when other 4.5 gen fighter are 9g abd can even go to 12g if really needed.
But who care it will be good to launch missiles against f-15/typhoon/f-18 in bvr without being detected at long range, still more manoeuvrable than f-35 and can drop pgm for the price of 20 million $.
That's still exeptional.
IIRC, longitudinal static stability has to do with the position of the center of gravity (more forward = more stable), rather than the position of intake and thrust, no?
Well, what is required here is the opposite - instability. That way, the aircraft will always be 'on edge', tending to roll or pitch. This makes it highly agile. In older generation aircraft it would be too much work for the pilot to constantly compensate with manual controls and thus was not implemented. But with computerized flight and envelope control, it has successfully been used on fighter jets.
Rather, most of the weight itself should be concentrated as close as possible to the CoG. And that center should be midway between intake and exhaust, not the geometrical center of the plane.
thegopnik, Hole, Mir, Broski and Lennox like this post
|
|
|
Home
Register
Log in
