ArmchairGeneral

Ah. Gotcha.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

sohamsri

That way....even sukhoi is not one of the contenders...
We already have the su-30s as are ace fighters, and we need the others planes to work along with them. In case the super hornet is elected....the combination will be formidable. Somewhat like what Germany is doing with its Mig 29s and F-14s.

Lets see if China has any Match to that, leave alone Pakistan.

__________________
" THe SiLEnt KNighT.

highsea

Umm, Germany never operated F-14's, the only foreign customer for the Tomcat was Iran.

And the Luftwaffe sold all their MiG-29's in 2003 to Poland for the grand price of one euro.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Tronic

What are ace fighters?

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

sohamsri

Man.... i seem to always type something wrong, i meant F-4s instead of F-14s..

I had read many instances of them using their Migs along with the f-4s....
so I thought they still gave 'em.

sohamsri

Ace fighters as in best fighters....

Deltacamelately

IMO, the 123 Agreement would require a different thread to debate.
It is a great deal, but I still don't think that the offer is a turnshift in itself. I will rather see it as a unit effort which is part of a bigger gammut of understanding and cooperations.
Speaking about the technology and elite systems, I wonder how many success stories could you quote...
Pakistan needs the US for its very survival, however as on date Pakistan is also indispensable for the US in its WOT.

Officially the US does say so....
True. But why compare them? Pakistan is strategically more atuned than India. Practically, However, in the future things might change as well.

__________________
I am the DARK that Rise to Kill..And Soar to Redeem!

gf0012-aust

on a public forum? yeah why not.


I'd say it's not indispensable. That caveat applies when a country demonstrates effective management of a mutual problem. Military and diplomatic "noblesse oblige" tend to take a back seat when partners have to work out other ways to fix problems because the principle visible partner is losing traction


Pakistan is not even accorded special status v NATO (unlike Japan and Australia). How many Pakistani officers were at the last NATO conf on common security issues (including basic discussion items such as common security access definitions??) Not 1. Nada, Zip. Media generated colour and movement is not the same as reality.

Hardly. ABCA, 3I, 4I and 5I's all have common vectors. Culture, Language, Political stability, nature of government, a fundamental binding in the separation of powers, historical ties, common systems, shared systems, integrated systems. Just at the cultural level it would be almost impossible, the others would not and I dare say, could not mesh effectively or coherently. Thats the practical harsh reality.

sohamsri

I wish the Su-37 was part of this....Lucky brazil

Deltacamelately

You might like to use another nomenclature.
Notwhithstanding the change in nomenclatures...Pakistan remains your Bastard...and a vital one.
Sure enough. However the problem is that they are your most needed ally in your efforts in Afghanistan. You might pull it on your own beyond the Canadians and Brits but what about the FATA and the porous limits?

I will give way in this. After all these nations are no fools to revitalise a 60 years old body.
Btw, all the above traits you coined sum up to one thing, i.e. Better Interoperability. Your new goalsheet seeks to optimize interoperability through collaboration and standardization. The goals are though very ambitious: relevance and responsiveness, standardization, integration and interoperability, mutual understanding; sharing knowledge, efficiency and effectiveness.

sohamsri

I thought posting some specialized details of a few planes would make the thread more interesting..... so i'l start with the Eurofighter Typhoon.

sohamsri

Flight tests are underway
Aviation Week & Space Technology
05/21/2007, page 22

Flight tests are underway to implement short- and long-term improvements to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The Italian air force's first front-line Typhoon squadron has started testing the IRIS-T imaging infrared guided dogfight missile. The unit, based at Grosetto in northern Italy, may deploy with the missile to the test range at Decicmomanu in Sardinia in October for firing trials. Operational test pilots also will be involved.

Meanwhile, the initial flight test series of the Captor Active Electronically Scanning Array Radar (Caesar) for future Typhoons was completed last week. First flight was conducted May 8 in Germany on DA5, a development aircraft, after delays from last year caused by integration problems with the "plug-and-play" concept and in obtaining flight clearance. The radar combines the traditional Captor-M back end with an active electronically scanned array using more than 1,000 transmit/receive modules.

Caesar (see photo) promises greater performance--including simultaneous multi-mode operations--but Eurofighter COO Brian Phillipson believes the shift to electronically scanned technology will be driven more by improved reliability than any other factor. Typhoon core customers (the U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain) have yet to commit to Caesar, which was developed by EuroRadar, a consortium of EADS, Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems, Galileo Avionica and Indra.



The "caesar"

sohamsri

New MiG-35 Optical Locator System (OLS)

Only most attentive experts have spotted the new shape of the onboard OLS (optical locator station) and some new elements on the plane. It says a lot for the specialists. MiG corporation team didn’t make a secret out of it - on the airshow in Bangalore MiG-35 has presented completely new Russian product - OLS. It has attracted a lot of specialists’ attention, today in the world there is no similar systems.

MiG engineers have defined basic points of the optical locator system development:
- multispectrality. System should work both in visible and IR ranges
- integrity. TV and IR systems, laser ranging system should be united in one solid construction
- system should work on wide angles, up to 360 and identify shapes of aerial and ground targets

OLS, as well as radar, allows to detect targets and aim weapon systems. But, unlike the radar, OLS has no emission which means - can’t be detected. OLS works like a human eye - it gets picture and analyzes it. Usually it’s been said radars are the eyes of the plane. But to be exact, it’s more locator device, like whales has. But OLS is really the eyes of the plane and they are very sharp.

OLS works not only in visible bands. Very important part of “plane visionâ€

sohamsri

Rafale optimisation is not a vain word or empty commercial argument.

The aircraft aerodynamic is way more developed than that of the previous design, the Rafale A.

After Rafale A flew first on 4th July 1986, it served its purpose as demonstrator, validating the close-coupled delta-canard formula.

In particular, it meet all of ACX requierements for high maneuvrability and STOL performances, climb rate, sustain dash speed etc.

The proposed Navalised version, ACM was to meet more stringuent requierement from Marine Nationale after a Carrier trial period:

Increased sink rate with a 16* AoA and better downward visibility than the A were among MN demands after Carrier trials.

Design have to evoluate further and Dassault designers didn't do things half-way.

The A wings were similar to that of the Mirage IIING, a crancked delta plan which allowed the A to sustain M 2.0 and provided with good qualities at high AoA.

In some instances (as in the case for the EAP), this wingplan can lead to assymetric dispacement of Cl at supersonic speed, the center of lift of the two parts of the wings moving back backward at a different rate. (It depends on wingsweep).

There were also gains to be made by repositioning the wings from low-shoulder to mid-fuelage and this unlocked several other design options starting with a reduction in wave drag:



1) This allowed the designers to give the aircraft a sharply sweept LEX which not only gives an increae in lift but also is shaped for supersonic performances.

2) The surfaces of the canard was increeased by 30* and their root shaped so that they can deflect fully at 30* and increase the effect of the deflected airflow above the wing.

3) The LEX leading edge were designed sharper with a tri-dimentional shape, a constant sweept and progressive adrenal



The LEX are rooted at the point where the inlets diffuser shock hits the inlet leading edge, and beneficiate from the same weaker shock wave which triggers their own while minimising its intensity.

At lower speeds they provoc several vortexes, one of which is clearly visible here, resulting on a significant increase in lift.

4) There was a marqued increase in wing-fuselage junction volume too, with a more blended shape which reduces wave drag and increases internal fuel volume.

Accessorly this feature is also reducing the aircraft RCS.

While this would have been more than enough for most design houses, it wasn't so for the Dassault aerodynamicians.

During the Mirage 4000 flight-tests, they notices that the nose cone and front fuselage could be used to accomodate better pressure control and increase overal aerodynamic efficiency around the inlets.

This resulted in the characteristic V-shaped fron fuselage and inlet arrangement which optimises the airflow in front of the diffusers

This arrangement allows for a higher supersonic performances and a less complex inlet design.

But AGAIN this wasn't enough for Dassault, when they were given the word "OPTIMISEZ"!!!

Using their experience on the Mirage series they developed the conceipt of pressure and wave control even further:

Using the principes of compressive and expensive waves they channeled the boundary layer to the exact point where they wanted these phenomenons to occur: At the limit of the wing root.

There are sdeveral advantages in doing so:

First they do away with the Mirage 2000 strakes, as they are notably unstealthy and offers less control over the boundary layer.

These are normaly rooted at shoulder-level and dynamises the airflow around the fin at high AoA offering increased Yaw stability.

In the case of Rafale, by shaping the inlets in a V, they made it possible to energise BOTH that of the wing at its root and the fin's simultaneously, retain a sleek aircaft and low RCS.



These shock takes place from the transonic regime, at point A where the airflow is separated, (part of it recycled by the engine IR-suppressant channel).

The shock created there is of the compressive type, and results on an increase in temperature, pressure and density, the airflow velocity becoming lower which means higher energy.

From point D and E, where it matters most, this same airflow is submited to another Shockwave, this time of the Expensive type.



A new Mach line is created, resulting on lower pressures, density, temperature but a higher velocity which energises the airflow coming from the canard surfaces and the rest of the airframe.

This particular feature works so WELL thats its effects can even be seen when the aircraft is stationary due to paint tear and wear

So to finish, the Supersonic optimisation of the wing.

Many tends to think that a 50*+ sweept angle would allow for better "performances".

Well it's true and untrue at the same time, the wing of a Mirage 2000 will drag more and have a lower lift coefficient at higher AoA.

There are advantages for higher sweept wings, higher Critical Mach is one but you need an accordingly overal reduced drag wave to take advantage of this.

For example: Mid-fuselage mounted wings and well blended fuselage wings areas, Rafale have this too...

Lower mid-to-high supersonic drag is another but this can be CONTROLED with different design features.

sohamsri

World News & Analysis

F/A-18E/F To Get New Air Combat Sensor
Aviation Week & Space Technology
06/04/2007, page 30

Andy Nativi
St. Louis

Enhanced electronic warfare systems drive U.S. Navy to improve F/A-18E/F sensor suite

Printed headline: Bug Eyes

The U.S. Navy wants to upgrade its F/A-18E/Fs with an infrared search-and-track system out of concern that increasingly sophisticated electronic jamming systems could thwart the fighter's radar system, leaving pilots "blinded" in air-to-air combat.

Although the service has been upgrading the fighter's radar, and the latest version (the APG-79 with active electronically scanned array) should have enhanced ability to nullify hostile jamming, Navy officials are worried about the proliferation of X-band electronic countermeasures systems, which could degrade radar performance. In particular, China's expansive spending on electronic warfare equipment is being carefully monitored. The service fears this build-up could compromise their own freedom to operate in the Pacific.

The addition of an infrared search-and-track system (IRST)--already standard on many Russian and western European fighters--would provide "spectral diversity" to the Navy. Even if the radar is jammed, a pilot would still be able to spot targets using the IR sensor. Also, the new subsystem could augment the radar by helping to detect hard-to-see targets, such as low- and slow-flying cruise missiles. Spotting such weapons can be a challenge for radars due to ground clutter, but missile engine exhaust plumes should be clearly visibly with the IRST.

The service is planning to field 150 of the new device on F/A-18E/F Block 2s in Fiscal Year 2012-13. Start-up development funds of $157.7 million are in the budget request now before Congress.

F/A-18 prime contractor Boeing has chosen Lockheed Martin to provide the sensor. A first prototype is set to be tested on a Super Hornet early next year through a company-funded risk reduction and capabilities demo effort. Enhanced versions of the AAS-42 electronics and optical units used on the F-14 (already available on South Korea's F-15K) will be repackaged in a modified 480-gal. fuel tank. The equipment will also feature an off-the-shelf thermal control unit.

Boeing opted for a podded solution to save money. "Originally, we considered integrating the IRST into the aircraft fuselage, on the upper nose, or on the gunbay doors, but these solutions required significant structural, electrical and cooling system modifications and, in both cases, called for relocating existing antennas," says Chris D. Wedewer, Boeing's F/A-18E/F IRST program manager. "We also investigated the possibility of putting an IRST pod on the right fuselage station, opposite the fuselage-mounted Raytheon [Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared] targeting pod, but this option came with too many operational limitations in terms of field of view," in particular when weapons are being carried, he adds.

Those limitations drove the decision to place the sensor on the centerline weapon station, traditionally the spot for the fuel tank. Since a fuel tank has already been cleared for that station, using such a device to house the IRST was seen as the next logical step. The IRST will also function as a fuel tank, with a part of a pod still able to accommodate 330 gal., Wedewer notes.

The main change to the external fuel tank will be to the front section, which will house the IRST. A fixed window will be installed, as well as a ram-air intake to provide air flow for the environment control system. The demonstrator system will provide a large air "scoop," but the operational version is supposed to be more streamlined.

One design challenge will be adjusting for weight-distribution center-of-gravity constraints. With most of the IRST hardware in the nose-section of the pod, that will not be easy and designers, as a fallback, are considering simply adding ballast in the rear section of the device to restore equilibrium. On the aircraft side, the installation addition of the IRST should be a non-issue if the F/A-18E/Fs have Advanced Mission Computers; a software upgrade is required, though.

Keeping the cost down--to around $2.5 million per pod--creates operational drawbacks, however. There are field-of-regard restrictions with this installation, which is why fighters generally have IRSR mounted on the radome. Such an installation may come in the future, Wedewer says. On the other hand, using a pod provides flexibility because they can be distributed among fleet users as needed. Initially, pods will likely be deployed with squadrons still flying the older APG-73 radar, which provides fewer counter-countermeasures capabilities than the newer model.

Pilots will have a choice of opting for the radar to cue the IRST or vice versa. A key advantage of IRST is that it remains passive, and by cross-cueing the two sensors a pilot can minimize use of the radar to just before firing a missile.

The IRST uses a long-wave sensor, operating in the 8-12-micron range for maximum detection. The device will provide targeting quality data, although not an imaging capability.