Do you mind to reply everything in one reply next time?
I'm just going to reply this one more time, because these conversations go on for days and I don't want to waste all my time replying to you on something that has so little relevance on Chinese military.
Make it clear, I have nothing to gain by insulting flankers, since China is the second largest flanker user in the world.
DarthAmerica said:
---Sigh...I suppose you are an engineer and defense professional? No ok well then let me give you a little advice for free. Stop quoting those meaningless RCS numbers. Unless you can tell me what was the source, as in where was the RCS measured, from what aspect and against what frequencies and detection technigues. Otherwise you are grossly mistaken in your assumtions. Oh and with what external payloads...lol. And its makers would be foolish to make such a claim as the B-1B and F-117 would most certainly have lower RCS.
Yes, I am an engineer, but not in that area. You know as I well as I do that I meant fighters (not bomber or fighter-bombers).
You are trying to state that su-27 doesn't have a huge RCS? Do your own search, there is plenty of places that use 10 to 15 m^2 as the RCS of su-27. Most of the number given are for frontal RCS. Google up (su-27 rcs) Look at it, it is much larger than typhoon. It uses two huge engines called AL-31F. In terms of length, wingspan and height, it beats even the size of F-15 (which is a huge fighter in its own right). It was developed with absolutely no stealthiness in mind. It uses no composite material. It's air intake even shows the engine blades! It doesn't use active cancellation. It has two huge vertical tailfins instead of one like on typhoon.
As for the bug, I figure its RCS is probably similar to EF-2000 due to their similar size, but typhoon is probably lower since it uses 70% composite material.
FYI- No meteor until 2012 at the EARLIEST. AMRAAM, AIM-9X and R-77 are already here and continually being upgraded.
meteor has already been test fired by the typhoon. It's in one of the defencetalk articles, you can search on it. Are you saying it needs 6 more years of testing? Before it gets the meteor, typhoon can still fire anything that F-18 uses. Besides, IRIS-T > AIM-9X. R-77's much talked about about long range mod is no where near coming out.
Also you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to which type performed better in regard to airsuperiority in Singapore. DO you want to know why? Because they werent doing a Platform vs Platform airsuperiority contest in Singapore. They were comparing the Platforms to a set of requirements and chose the one that fit best. For many of the requirements, the Typhoon could not even compete as the capabilities didnt exist, and still dont, at the time of the competition. Pay attention to the two finalist and eventual winner.
meh, Typhoon's original modifications did not have them, but the following tranches will. F-15 and Su-27 started off as pure air superiority platforms and now they can handle A2G duties too. F-18 is just a jack of all trade and master of none fighter.
In the next few years there will be a number of upgrades to the systems software till Final Operational Capability is attained. Following this a number of hardware upgrades are planned. These involve changing a number of both the shop replaceable items and line replaceable units. These upgrades will focus on improving resolution and ECCM capabilities. The next upgrades will see a switchover to off-the-shelf components. Even with these improvements there are a number of fundamental weaknesses in the CAPTOR's design such as; relatively slow scanning speeds compared to newer technology arrays, relative ease of detection, effects on RCS, etc.
Read back on what I wrote. I said that it has faster scanning speed that any other mechanically steered array, but not fast compared to ESA radar. And the part on RCS, I said that you should consider it's RCS as a whole with the fighter rather than on its own. I also said that compared to Bars, it has advantages like wider scanning angles and longer range.
As far as the SU-30MKI radar goes I do have proof but its in print. Other proof is online and can be read by a google search. If you still wish to dispute this point thats fine but I and other engineers know better and that is enough. Also you should know that CAPTOR does not have the same type of multimode capability and doesnt hold a candle to AESA or ESA in terms of simultaneous mode operation. Especially the latest AESAs on US fighters which can fire multiple missiles at a2a targets AND SIMULTANEOUSLY drop JDAMS on moving ground targets while jamming and acting as a communication hub and ELINT harvester.
Need I state it again? Bars-M is not 100% ESA. Since you seem intent on proofing that Bars has more modes than Captor, I will just give you the description on its homepage.
http://www.niip.info/main.php?page=raz_sky_bars
"AIR-TO-AIR"
Speed search;
Seach with distance gauging;
Search and lock-in in the short-range combat mode;
Tracking down up to 15 targets in order to evaluate the tactical situation and conduct aircraft team operations without search suspension;
Accurate tracking down of up to 4 targets to ensure weapons application without search suspension;
Targets illumination and transmission of orders on radiocorrection while guiding missiles;
Identification of target type by its spectral characteristics;
Identification of multiple target characteristics without visibility distortion.
"AIR-TO-SURFACE"
Terrain mapping in the real beam mode;
Terrain mapping with the Dopler beam narrowing;
Terrain mapping with antenna synthetic aperture;
Selection of ground-based moving targets;
Gauging coordinates down to the ground-based target;
Tracking down of up to 2 ground-based targets.
"AIR-TO-SEA"
Marine search;
Far-out marine search;
Selection of moving marine targets;
Gauging coordinates down to moving or immobile marine targets.
How many modes are that? You should know the captor radar is capable of scanning A2A and A2G concurrently (well not concurrently in a physical sense but to the fighters eye due to it's relative fast scanning rate for a slotted array radar). Does it look like Bars is capable of doing both launching AAMs and AShM at the same time? But of course, your printed copy is more worthy than the information on the manufacturer's homepage.
And I'm not here to say that captor is better than APG-63v2, 77, 79, 80, 81 in overall capability. Last time I checked, 79 isn't geting fitted on F-18s until at least later this year. (not including the test trial, I'm talking about APG-79 F-18s joining service). The other radars are equippped on fighters that are irrelevant in this conversation.
By the way. Quoting DERA's study, which is mocked industry wide as an irrelevant marketing ploy 10 years out of date. Says a lot about your understanding. If you would like futher debunking of DERA then post the detailed text of the study so I can parse it piece by peice into oblivion.
I'm not using this as a proof, but rather a guide.
You have went from saying mki and F-18 having advantage over typhoon to saying that the difference between their manuverability is small enough that it would not make a big difference in combat. Certain planes are just inheritantly more manuverable than others. mki demonstrated it against F-15 in Cope India and typhoon demonstrated it against F-15Es in that mock fight. Yes, WVR depends a lot on the skill of the pilot, but manuverability has different uses. It certainly helps out in WVR a lot, but it also helps out in BVR, because it makes it harder for the enemy plane to lock you on and such. Gives you a better chance of tiring out and evading incoming MRAMM. Let's put it this way. You just need to look at the T/W ratio of the plane on standard loads, I don't think F-18 or su-27 can compete with that. Another idea I had was this. J-10 was said to be more manuverable than F-18 by ONI. It was also said to be more manuverable than the flankers according to plaaf flight demonstration officer. You don't think J-10 is manuverable than typhoon, do you?
