Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 May 2013 22:13

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Discussion Forums » Military Issues & History Forum

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 74 of 88
  [ 3507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 88  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Avik
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 18:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16
Posts: 156
Quote:
The reporting is factually not correct, and is more of an attempt by HAL to deflect attention from quality and other issues.


Exactly right!

To everyone going on and on about hangars, have you ever seen commercial airplanes parked in hangars, when not undergoing deep repairs? And this when tolerance levels in some of the avionics in commercial planes is lower than military specs.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rahul M
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 19:02 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 12427
Location: racetrack pattern over BRFATA.
rohit, newer gen aircraft do need more careful handling on ground, even russian ones are supposedly much less rugged than the earlier generations.
Top
 Profile  
 
rohitvats
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 19:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4828
Location: Jatland
Rahul M wrote:
rohit, newer gen aircraft do need more careful handling on ground, even russian ones are supposedly much less rugged than the earlier generations.


Sirji, I'm not for one moment doubting the argument about electronics. I've seen this in some stuff in the IA as well.

My point is simple - of all the points made by the author in the article, only one or two point to the electronics part. Most of the other stuff points to parts which will be part of any aircraft - generation not withstanding. For example, take the point about the engine blades - applies to all the a/c in IAF service. What is so special or delicate about the MKI blades?

Plus, he also mentions that stuff made in India for LCA/Dhruv/Sitara are qualified for higher temp - 71deg IIRC. Fine. But what about similar stuff in other Russian a/c we've been operating for donkey ears? As I said, I have my suspision on the timing of that article.
Top
 Profile  
 
pandyan
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 20:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12
Posts: 1501
Report basically is saying that the environment/parking on tarmac has an effect on the overall health of the aircraft. What if it is correct? What if this is accelerating the aging of the aircraft?

Even during the first crash there were notes about how ejection/parachute mechanism had a premature failure.
It could be issue with quality of design, material, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance or accelerated wear-tear due to environment [which means more aggressive maintenance/replacement of parts are required].

When investing in long-term/expensive equipment, shelter is a minor incremental cost to protect the equipment.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rahul M
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 23:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 12427
Location: racetrack pattern over BRFATA.
>> HAL's first official communication, expressing serious concerns, is said to have been sent to the IAF's Maintenance Command in October 2010.

if true, that goes against the view in this thread that this is a CYA move from HAL.
Top
 Profile  
 
rohitvats
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2011 23:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4828
Location: Jatland
Rahul M wrote:
>> HAL's first official communication, expressing serious concerns, is said to have been sent to the IAF's Maintenance Command in October 2010.

if true, that goes against the view in this thread that this is a CYA move from HAL.

On the contrary, to me this is the smoking gun in the article. How didhe become privy to HAL letter and that too dated 2010? And again, what coincidence that a letter should exist to exactly match the 'cause' under investigation? And of all the things under the sun which can be cause of crash, the author picks this for investigation and lo and behold, there is 'evidence' to support the hypothesis.

To me, it is plain and simple that the author was 'encouraged' to use this line of argument and 'evidence' made available to support the same. The refrence to letters and memos is similar to how babus release info to press on vested issues.

To me Tarmak007 has always been the cat's paw to present the DRDO side of story which cannot be presented officially. The material, in terms of literature and pics/videos cannot come about w/o deep and consistent support within DRDO/DPSU. His stories and scoops are not some luck by chance events.
Top
 Profile  
 
ramana
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 05:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30592
Rohitvats and Tsarkar, Basicaly Tarmak is saying that aging due to weather will effect the non-metallics. Yes if that is going on for years in the sun.

As the former officer stated regular maintenance is IAF SOP. I agree the above article is a red herring.

They fact they had to plant a red herring shows that some thing is not right. Its a tactic of blaming the user for improper storage.

So did the rubber seals fail in the FBW end actuators and hence the aging due to heat exposure the cause?

Was this article commented on?

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/s ... gn-or.html

I didnt know that the plane was on first flight after maintenance.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rahul M
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 07:56 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 12427
Location: racetrack pattern over BRFATA.
rohit, come on, he was HAL PRO not too long back, of course he will get info from his ex-colleagues. that by itself doesn't mean anything. also, HAL /= DRDO.
Top
 Profile  
 
Singha
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 08:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25512
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
I recall a photo from cope india 2004 wherein a usaf pilot was sitting in a MK and a indian wingco was standing on the ladder explaining the cockpit to him. the leather, rubber or plastic upholstery of the seat did look fairly beat up...I guess it happens if we expose any such material to strong sunlight. even running shoes these days have a line saying do not put in prolonged sun...

though it might not be a flight safety issue, at the very least these plastic and rubber parts that will crap out sooner will not be cheap to replace and will just consume extra ground hrs, so better put these pups inside a simple al-udeid style camel tents and keep them 'cool' imho. also makes life more comfortable for the ground crew who might need to work on the a/c for hours in blazing heat......
Top
 Profile  
 
rohitvats
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 11:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4828
Location: Jatland
Rahul M wrote:
rohit, come on, he was HAL PRO not too long back, of course he will get info from his ex-colleagues. that by itself doesn't mean anything. also, HAL /= DRDO.


Sirji, HAL/=DRDO and yet, he has access to some fantastic stuff - both content and pics and vids - from across the spectrum.

I'm not casting any aspersions on him - I think he is doing a fabulous job and with him now writing for Indian Express, we can expect some decent coverage on work done by DRDO/HAL/DPSUs and not the Rajat Pandit type nonsense.
Top
 Profile  
 
rohitvats
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 11:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 4828
Location: Jatland
ramana wrote:
<SNIP> Was this article commented on?

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/s ... gn-or.html

I didnt know that the plane was on first flight after maintenance.


ramana, I think there was a news report which said that the pilots tried for quite some time to get the plane under control but then punched out when all else failed. The ocsillation bit might be an indication of the cause.

However, we seem to have missed another data point in that article - the plane was manufactured in 2009-2010 period. So, over a likely flying period of 16-18 months, the a/c has already done 400 hrs of flying. Points to some serious amount of flying been done. Which reminds me of the Jaguar article on BRF - may be, issues which might have come to light couple of years down the year are being accelerated due to intensive flying? And the 'sunburn' issue might well add to it?

One thing I've learned from the various crash studies is not to comment unless all the facts are on the table. Let us wait and watch.
Top
 Profile  
 
tsarkar
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 13:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Posts: 984
Location: mumbai
ramana wrote:
Basicaly Tarmak is saying that aging due to weather will effect the non-metallics. Yes if that is going on for years in the sun. As the former officer stated regular maintenance is IAF SOP. I agree the above article is a red herring.
They fact they had to plant a red herring shows that some thing is not right. Its a tactic of blaming the user for improper storage.
Precisely. The investigations are not completed, and an as-of-now-unrelated-generic-PoV is being spread.

Secondly, engine, air-frame, missiles and consumables like tyres have specified lives in terms of flight hours/usage cycles/etc, and IAF maintenance staff (numbering double digit per aircraft from different specializations) is responsible for checking whether there is accelerated wearing of any part or consumable.

And the biggest flaw of the sunlight story is that that aircraft was on an air test AFTER being serviced/overhauled at HAL. So if any rubber part or avionics showed accelerated wear (due to any reason, sunlight or otherwise), then it should have been replaced, or indicated the finding in the records for the particular aircraft.

I would have given the story more credibility if it was backed by investigation findings.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rahul M
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 13:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 12427
Location: racetrack pattern over BRFATA.
regarding oscillations, there was this high profile FBW failure in the F-22 leading to a crash.

the gripen had a couple of similar crashes. however none of these were after the aircraft was inducted and flying for more than a decade.

p.s. from what I gathered from reports I don't think anyone is saying env degradation has anything to do with the latest crash, have they ?
Top
 Profile  
 
nachiket
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 14:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 3823
What the news reports said was a problem with the "control system" not specifically the FBW system. An FBW failure on a relaxed stability aircraft would mean an immediate and total loss of control and the pilots would only have a few seconds to bail out. That's not how it was reported. They said the pilots tried very hard to get the aircraft under control but gave up after they couldn't do it and then bailed. They wouldn't get any time in case of a FBW system failure like what happened during the first crash. Methinks this could be a mechanical fault.
Top
 Profile  
 
Rahul M
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 14:28 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 12427
Location: racetrack pattern over BRFATA.
>> An FBW failure on a relaxed stability aircraft would mean an immediate and total loss of control and the pilots would only have a few seconds to bail out. That's not how it was reported.

depends on the type of failure really. it would happen as you say if the FBW was shut down, as happened in the first crash. otherwise errors could get steadily accumulated leading to a crash. the F-22 crash for example. also, AFAIK even 4-5 seconds is a long time on a problematic fighter, given the speed at which situations change.
Top
 Profile  
 
anand_sankar
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2011 16:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24
Posts: 118
Location: Bangalore
A couple of things that disturb me about this issue of sunlight affecting the SU-30MKI, it should not be a big issue. I am taking avionics, and plastics and polymers separately.

1. Avionics

I come from an electronics background. From the time semi-conductors and transistor-based circuits came into being, it was realised that to operate it in conditions such as India, you need to adapt them, and this process is called Tropicalisation.

Anything from cellphones to TVs to computers, manufactured for India have to be tropicalised.

Now the IAF has been buying high-tech equipment, which use sensitive circuits, since the 1980s. Tropicalisation of circuit boards and components will be one of the main contractual terms. I would be surprised that the manufacturer didn't do it themselves as they would pay huge penalties in the statutory warranty period.

Also from the Soviet era they have been selling hardware across the world, so the circuits must be tropicalised.

I can safely say the sunlight, heat, or humidity, will have little or no effect over the Su-30's avionics.

2. Polymers, rubber and plastics

Now this unfortunately is open to standards that differ from country to country. It is possible that Russian components are designed for less direct sunlight, less heat and humidity thanks to their higher latitude.

But the question begs... The IAF should have insisted on Indian standards for these parts. Okay, it slipped our consciousness in the Russian-built frames, but HAL in all their wisdom I hope are using parts that are of Indian standard to assemble the Indian-build ones. If not it is a travesty! UV and heat tolerant polymers and plastics are available even for basic camping gear nowadays.

There is a benefit and drawbacks to using shelters. But the IAF is best judge of whether they need it and where they need it.
Top
 Profile  
 
Shrinivasan
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2011 03:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1708
Location: Lone Star State
^^^ There could be another line to this "slated story" IAF COULD be angling for some additional moolah in the next plan period to do some serious upgrades to the AFBs. They have already got the MAFI approved for the initial set of bases as well as the next set of 30 odd bases (the second part is not signed but is put in as an option in the original contract/deal), this covers the aviation aids and related bells & whistles. Next step would be some major civil work across the bases... Even a casual inspection of our air bases would show a large number of HAS and dispersal zones.
unfortunately our Rambhas WOULD/MIGHT not fit into those structures designed for Migs, hence this big thakleef about Sub-burns and Tans for Ms Rambha. Hope these are done before Katrina starts performing her Chikni Chameli across SDRE Land.
Top
 Profile  
 
SaiK
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2011 03:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 17500
Location: NowHere
chetak wrote:
quote="shiv"]quote="SaiK"]I think the question veerav is asking why there is a need for a "NON FBW" flight control?/quote]
There is no need for that on the Su 30 AFAIK, but there is a switch to shut down the systems presumably to be done after the flight like shutting down your computer./quote]

This switch is there for maintenance purposes only. It was supposed to be wire locked and guarded so that it is not operated inadvertently in flight like it was.

The more you idiot proof a system, the bigger the idiots they invent.

BTW, the pilot who inadvertently operated this switch was not even Su qualified.

The problem is one does not design for idiots, but for errors (accidental). To err is human [example: don't let driver to shift to reverse while in forward motion, means it is designed for errors].
Top
 Profile  
 
Austin
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2012 09:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7520
Das Flanker .......Su-35 number 3

http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events ... su-35s.wbp
Top
 Profile  
 
Austin
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2012 13:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7520
City firm to help encase Sukhoi engines right

Quote:
The Koraput division of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which is involved in the making of the Sukhoi-30 MK1, is getting a helping hand from a Bangalore-based firm, Hind High Vacuum (HHV), for its specialised welding needs and ensure the robustness and good quality of the weld of the casings of the fighter’s engines.

The Rs 26 crore welding unit made by HHV is being acquired by HAL’s unit. This is part of the attempts at indigeni-sation HAL is taking up in the manufacture of SU-30MK1.

The fourth generation multi-role fighter is being put together for the IAF under licence from Russia’s Sukhoi Corporation. In the first instance, the assembly requires welding of different titanium alloy components in a protected atmosphere sans oxygen. This is to prevent the formation of any oxidation spots on the welds which could weaken under the heat and stress of the engine’s service conditions.

Incidentally, “the cost of the welding unit HHV made is around half the price quoted to HAL by a European engineering company. This gave an opportunity to HHV for building such a complex system,” said Nagarjun Sakhamuri, MD of HHV.

The high vacuum technology company which, for the past 45 years, has been helping with the indigenisation for agencies like ISRO, Atomic Energy, ADA, DRDL among others which faced a denial of technology from abroad for many years. To HAL itself, HHV has designed, made and delivered nearly 25 different pieces of complex equipment in the last three decades.

HHV embarked on the task just two years ago and is now delivering the welding facility to the Koraput Divison of the HAL where the Sukhoi engine will be put together. The effort involved designing from scratch the unit.

HHV decided to robotise the welding for almost 85 per cent of the task, reducing the risk to human welders. Inputs from Pune-based Precision Automation and Robotics India Ltd (PARI) helped the cause.

The two robots were acquired from Kuka of Japan, the software and integration in the process was done by PARI.
Top
 Profile  
 
chackojoseph
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2012 20:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Posts: 3591
Location: Frontier India : Nemo me impune lacessit
Low flying SU-30 MKI creates alarm in TN District
Top
 Profile  
 
Kersi D
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2012 21:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1070
vishnu.nv wrote:
The shelters should be made for all the aircraft's in the IAF not only the Su-30 MKI's. Actually IAF should have created provisions for this in the MAFI project which is happening right now.

In forward bases we should have the Concrete shelters which can withstand cruise missile attacks.


Most of the airbases on the western front have concrete shelter. The eastern front is different. New concrete shelters are being built at Tezpur & maybe Chabua. Surprisingly Gwalior does not "seem" to have many concrete shelters

K
Top
 Profile  
 
keshavchandra
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 14:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23
Posts: 244
For the urbal area what is the standard altitude as flying SOP for SU-30MKI....? I am in pune and each day I have been seeing these beasts flying very low and gives shocking waves. :roll:
Sonic boom by jet creates panic
Top
 Profile  
 
Gaur
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 15:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1901
^^
No SOP for altitude as such. Everything is preplanned and it all depends upon the mission objectives for that particular sortie.
Top
 Profile  
 
Ivanev
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 16:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Sep 2011 02:13
Posts: 247
^^Flying low is a practice being done excessively to evade enemy radars. Even transport pilots are trained to fly low and hug the terrain to evade radars.
Top
 Profile  
 
krishnan
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 17:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 4025
Location: "There is no greater weapon than a prepared mind."
Flying low...phalcon...city....
Top
 Profile  
 
Aditya_V
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 17:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6194
krishnan wrote:
Flying low...phalcon...city....


Which City- Chennai?
Top
 Profile  
 
krishnan
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 17:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 4025
Location: "There is no greater weapon than a prepared mind."
lol

no..i was just saying....Su 30 flying low ... with AWACS around...fighter aircraft arent the only one which need practice...even big birds like AWACS do
Top
 Profile  
 
Philip
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2012 17:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 7505
Location: India
Curious about Gwalior.Wasn't it the same base where aeons ago Mirage fighters were damaged when the false ceiling of the AC hangars allegedly gave way? I remember some disparaging articles in the media then about the need for air-con hangars.

If this indeed was the case,and there exist air-con hangars for special birds,what's the problem in not providing the Flankers with similar / basic protection? Everyone knws that Gwalior is one of the hottest places on earth in the summer,and surely,exposing an aircraft with such sensitive electronics/avionics,etc.,will take its toll sometime?
Top
 Profile  
 
mody
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 14:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 159
Location: Mumbai, India
Wiki lists Su 30 MKI's radar cross section as being 20 sq meters, while that of Su 35 as being 1 sq. meter. How is Su35's RCS 20 time lower then that of Su 30 MKI?

The below data is given in the F-22 Raptor page on Wiki:


Aircraft Radar cross section (estimate)
Sukhoi Su-30MKI 20 square metres[173]
Dassault Rafale 2 square metres[174]
Eurofighter Typhoon 1 square metre[175]
Sukhoi Su-35BM 1 square metre[176]
Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk 0.025 square metres[174]
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 0.0001 square metres[177]
Top
 Profile  
 
Aditya_V
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 15:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6194
The Engine Intakes with the Engine blades completely open as opposed to S shaped designs can make a huge difference.
Top
 Profile  
 
mody
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 16:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 159
Location: Mumbai, India
A twenty times reduction in RCS, with only a change is the air intake ducts seems a bit too much. The Su 35 is listed at having half the RCS of even the rafael. Even if it is equal, dimensionally the Su-35 is bigger plane that both the EF-2K and the rafael.
Top
 Profile  
 
Aditya_V
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 16:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6194
Mody-> I agree , the main reduction will come from the intake redesign, don't know what the other changes are which reduces RCS by such a huge degree.
Top
 Profile  
 
Singha
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 18:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 25512
Location: havildar-major, 1st JSOC munna detachment.
I dont believe the su35BM number posted.
Top
 Profile  
 
Aditya_V
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 18:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6194
Singha, any chance SU 35BM has LCA % composites?
Top
 Profile  
 
Victor
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2012 19:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31
Posts: 1108
Singha wrote:
I dont believe the su35BM number posted.

The RCS given for the Su30 MKI is also nonsense. Wiki cites an old Ajai Shukla article for its "20 sq mt" claim. For comparision, the 1950s era Tu-16 Badger bomber which is almost twice as big is reported to have an RCS of 16 sq mts on the Su27 page.

If Rafale is 2 sq mt, I would expect the MKI would be about 3 or max 5.
Top
 Profile  
 
nachiket
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 03:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 3823
Aditya_V wrote:
The Engine Intakes with the Engine blades completely open as opposed to S shaped designs can make a huge difference.

The BM has S-ducts? Where is that mentioned? I couldn't find a clear enough pic of the intakes to determine that. In any case, given the flanker's engine placement, any S-duct if present would still provide only partial hiding of the fan blades. The lack of canards would make a difference in the RCS. But frankly both the 20m^2 and 1m^2 numbers appear to be pulled from someone's musharraf to me. Realitymust be somewhere in between.
Top
 Profile  
 
Cain Marko
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 08:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Posts: 1218
Location: Atop Orthanc, cursing, "Damn it where are those backfires??"
As Victor sahab has pointed out, Wiki page is to be considered with a pinch of salt. Original Su-27 airframe sans any RCS measures was around 15-16msq at most. The MKI has had RCS measures for sure (RAM) and then its composite %age has also increased over time - this was planned well in advance. Also, since the mechanical gimbals on the BARS in the MKI allows it to be placed at an angle other than perpendicular, RCS is further reduced (the big dish otherwise can be a nice reflector it seems)

Furthermore, the Russians have shown some rather stellar results in reducing radar sigs on legacy frames. IIRC, the IAF was shown an RCS reduction of 25X for the MiG-21. Is it any wonder that most AFs find the MiG-21 Bison a rather elusive targets? And that would also explain the reduction achieved on a Su-35BM. Supposedly, the Roosies are also using plasma to reduce the 35's RCS.

The Rafale, might actually have an RCS much smaller than 1msq as there has been some indications to this effect including a Dassault statement that its RCS was 1/3rd of a Mirage 2000 (3msq?). Phoon numbers have been all over the place including 2nd wonlee to F22 as well as 1/10th of F-15C (i.e. 1 msq).

CM
Top
 Profile  
 
Austin
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 14:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 7520
From what I had read in many books Yefim Gordon etc and if my memory is not playing tricks

RCS figures for

Su-27 , Su-30 , F-15 ---> 10 - 12 m2
Su-30MKI after RAM treatement etc ---> 5 m2
Bison after RAM treatement ----> 1 m2
Su-35S -----> 3 - 5 m2
Top
 Profile  
 
shiv
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2012 14:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 20927
Location: Pakistan Painindabutt.
Radar signatures
http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/ ... -4168.html
Quote:
F-22 _____ (-40 dBsm.) the size of a marble
B-2 ______ (-40 dBsm.) the size of a marble
F-117 ____ (-35 dBsm.)
JSF ______ (-30 dBsm.) the size of a golf ball (equivalent of an insect).
F-18E/F __ (0 dBsm.) the equivalent size of a 3 ft. dia. aluminum ball
B-1 ______ (0 dBsm.) the equivalent size of a 3 ft. dia. aluminum ball
conventional
F-15 type fighter aircraft = (+20 dBsm.)
B-52 _____ (+40 dBsm.) the equivalent size of a 170 ft. dia. aluminum ball

B-52: 99.5 sqm
B-1A: 10.0 sqm
B-1B: 1.02 sqm
SR-71: 0.014 sqm
F-22: 0.0065 sqm
F-117: 0.003 sqm
B-2: 0.0015 sqm
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 74 of 88
  [ 3507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 88  Next

Board index » Discussion Forums » Military Issues & History Forum

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, Merril, mNisheeth, sgopal and 22 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group