Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Aviation

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Phoenix10
    replied
    True. And as others have already mentioned, EADS and Rafale (especially) are so desperate to get exports they probably offered anything the Indians asked in terms of ToT.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by turkish View Post
    Hi guys i just wanted to know why the Indian's have eliminated the F16 & F18 from the MMRCA deal... since you guys know we have a deal like that for Brazil where F18 is one of the contender... Can anyone tell me which is better F18 or Su 35..??
    My best guess is the decision came down to that big bugaboo, ToT; the US is only willing to transfer so much technology and knowledge, and only to certain contries. India still isn't part of that favored technology group that includes Australia, Britain, NZ and Japan, there are still too many question marks in regards to India (from the US point of view). IMHO, India wasn't willing to accept an airframe with too many strings attached, no matter how good it is; if they can't utilize an airframe to it's full extent because the manufacturer won't give them the source codes, then they'll take something slightly inferior if it comes WITH the source codes. At this point, I think both BAE and Dassault would be willing to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix10
    replied
    There is already a discussion about the MMRCA competition located here:

    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mil...ortlist-6.html

    Many good points and points of view have been provided there related to this. Versus threads are not allowed on WAB. As with everything, you cannot say that any technology is better than another unless you have a set of requirements against which to compare it. A better question would be "Which aircraft is better given the strategic goals of Brazil, given the roles the aircraft is intended to perform, and who it is to perform those roles against". That discussion probably should not take place in this thread though...

    EDIT: An even better question would be: "What capabilities are most important to Brazil given their current and future strategic realities and which aircraft, the F/A-18E/F or Su-35 or any other, might best provide those capabilities?"
    Last edited by Phoenix10; 02 Jun 11,, 01:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • turkish
    replied
    Hi guys i just wanted to know why the Indian's have eliminated the F16 & F18 from the MMRCA deal... since you guys know we have a deal like that for Brazil where F18 is one of the contender... Can anyone tell me which is better F18 or Su 35..??

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Welcome back, Commander, welcome back. Do you want us to merge with your all account?

    Leave a comment:


  • wabpilot
    replied
    Originally posted by Porsche917LH View Post
    Subject fighters:
    Are there any instances of aircraft surviving direct hits with missiles. How likely is this?
    My own airline has classified the answer as business confidential, but I have an open source that says the answer is 42 civilian aircraft have been hit by missiles fired from the ground (mostly MANPADS) and 29 of them destroyed. Roughly 69% of hits kill the civilian aircraft. The source, the FBI, is comprehensive from 1978 - 2000. No comment on how my airline's security department views the study.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    opsec questions are not allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArtyEngineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Porsche917LH View Post
    Hypothetical here: You lose all control surfaces. (who knows why) as an A10 driver and are at a typical attack altitude flying inverted in a slow roll. Are you screwed?
    .
    Not necessarily, both the ACESII and the latest Martin Baker seats can eject inverted down to as low as 200ft. No idea how they achieve this as it obviously involves reorienting the seat and giving a boost to gain altitude. Got to be one heck of a ride.

    Regards

    Arty

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Porsche917LH View Post
    Wow. Was that where the drone whacked into the mothership?
    I can actually answer this one (finally!): yes, it was the last launch of a D-21 drone from an M-21 "mothership" at M3.5. The D-21 porpoised at release, and took out one of the vertical stabs on the M-21. As you can imagine, instability set in rather quickly, and both the pilot and the LSO elected to eject. Both survived the ejection at M3.5 and 80K but, as zraver mentioned, the LSO drowned after landing in the ocean. After that, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson cancelled all further D-21/M-21 drone flights, and all futher D-21 launches were made from modified B-52's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Porsche917LH
    replied
    Wow. Was that where the drone whacked into the mothership?

    Hypothetical here: You lose all control surfaces. (who knows why) as an A10 driver and are at a typical attack altitude flying inverted in a slow roll. Are you screwed?

    Oh yeah: When do you guys prefer being called a driver vs. a pilot. Kind of confuses me.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    To clarify this a bit, even with a good zero-zero seat, the initial vector of the seat + man system must be taken into account. An aircraft in a 40 degree dive at 500 knots will enter a zone where an ejection will not be successful somewhere in the first 1,000' above the ground. Part of ejection training is to arrest this downward vector before pulling the handle; otherwise, all bets are off. But at the core of it, it is true, a good zero-zero seat would allow you to eject from a parked aircraft and walk away.

    Flail injuries are another matter. High-speed ejections are extremely dangerous, almost guaranteed to produce severe injuries.

    Interestingly, I have a sister-in-law who worked for years on egress systems for the U.S. Navy. She said that Soviet/Russian seats are significantly better/safer than Western seats like the ACES II and Martin-Baker.
    The current Russian seats have a sheild that pops up. Although the US does hold the speed record for ejection- mach 3.5 at 80,000' from a M-21. One of the crew survived, one drowned on landing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    As long as the seat is not aimed at the ground anyway.
    To clarify this a bit, even with a good zero-zero seat, the initial vector of the seat + man system must be taken into account. An aircraft in a 40 degree dive at 500 knots will enter a zone where an ejection will not be successful somewhere in the first 1,000' above the ground. Part of ejection training is to arrest this downward vector before pulling the handle; otherwise, all bets are off. But at the core of it, it is true, a good zero-zero seat would allow you to eject from a parked aircraft and walk away.

    Flail injuries are another matter. High-speed ejections are extremely dangerous, almost guaranteed to produce severe injuries.

    Interestingly, I have a sister-in-law who worked for years on egress systems for the U.S. Navy. She said that Soviet/Russian seats are significantly better/safer than Western seats like the ACES II and Martin-Baker.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Porsche917LH View Post
    Subject: Ejection seats

    What conditions are necessary for one of you guys to attempt punching out. Altitude, attitude, airspeed etc.
    zero-zero seats can do it sitting on the ground at a dead stop.

    YouTube - A-7 Corsair Brake Failure and Zero-Zero Ejection

    YouTube - Early zero zero ejection seat

    YouTube - ACES II ejection seat test

    As long as the seat is not aimed at the ground anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Porsche917LH
    replied
    Subject: Ejection seats

    What conditions are necessary for one of you guys to attempt punching out. Altitude, attitude, airspeed etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by Porsche917LH View Post
    Subject fighters: Can A2A missiles ever be employed against ground targets with some effectiveness?
    We often wondered about this! The main problems would be the warhead and fusing.

    An AIM-9 will easily track a decent IR source, regardless of target velocity. A diesel exhaust from a tank or truck is more than adequate, and the missile would likely guide with no problems so long as the background isn't too hot. With the missile enroute, the next step is fusing. A-A fuses are contact and proximity, and there is no way to select/deselect one. As the missile approaches, its prox fuse will likely be triggered by mother Earth too early to be effective against anything even moderately armored. Thin-skinned vehicles or radar might take acceptable damage, though.

    The warhead is optimized for the flying fuel tanks that are airplanes. They deliver large volumes of pyrophoric debris at high velocity, but nothing remotely that might be considered lethal to armor. So you might trash a truck or car, definitely would trash a radar (if you have a heat source to track), but real armor would probably remain unharmed.

    AIM-7/AIM-120 - same fusing problems, same warhead problems, but more importantly, no doppler signal. Anything on the ground would be seen as a rock, a tree, and couldn't be tracked to begin with. There is some potential to track RF signals, but that is the realm of HARM and similar.

    Subject tiltrotors: Do you ever see tiltrotors supplanting helos and or the ac130 in slow CAS?
    This is outside my expertise, but I would have to say no. Tiltrotors combine helicopter and fixed wing functionality, but we already have superb platforms for both when it comes to delivering ordnance. I cannot imagine an Osprey ever coming close to the performance of either an A-10/AC-130, or an Apache, and its unique mechanism makes it a bit more vulnerable than any of the traditional attack assets.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X