Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 since the chinese are developing their own GPS satelite network. They are? Do you happen to have a link? Link to post Share on other sites
Cobrahistorian Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) Looks like a Predator had sex with a JDAM. Jon Edited March 9, 2007 by Cobrahistorian Link to post Share on other sites
OKB Krasnaya Zvezda Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Looks like a Predator had sex with a JDAM.Jon :lol: yeah kind of... Zmey I have a link here There is one paragraf that I would like to point out: China is sure to become a space power in the 21st century, able and necessary to have its own global positioning system Why is China actively participating in the Galileo program? According to Prof. Guo Jingjun with the Terrestrial Space Information Research Institute of Tsinghua University, except for military uses, the huge economic returns brought by GPS can never be neglected. Although the United States sends GPS signals free of charge, it has made exorbitant money from selling receiving equipment. She gave an example, saying that in 1986 a GPS locator of common precision cost US$50,000, and one with high precision US$100,000. Today, a locator of a cell-phone size costs no more than US$2,000, and a high-precision locator only US$30,000. How much profit American corporations have carried off is imaginable. Link to post Share on other sites
OKB Krasnaya Zvezda Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 AND this. Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Thanks! Much appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 It's a more efficient set up for coordination, that's why large bombers, some tactical aircraft (like the TF-102, F-111, and A-6), and the Mighty Tweet have it. It incurs a penalty though in frontal area and drag.Regards, Murph The XB-52 had a tandem cockpit and when LeMay saw it, he flat out said "Change it." Trigger. Where did you get that particular on the T-37? That looks like the 113th ramp pre-9/11. I personally think the T-6 Texan is the greatest trainer ever built. Sure sounds better! :lol: Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 If someone posts about Super Hornet (which is a fairly old airframe as well but still being developed), how often have you seen it attacked by the guys into French or Russian aircrafts? You have GOT to be kidding me. I see the Super Hornet attacked by pretty much ANYONE, ANYTIME it gets posted. Seriously poor example. And trust me, I'm not biased against "Russian" aircraft. I've been known to slam on the F-14 quite frequently in the past, for similar reasons: I find them both to be tremendously overrated fighter aircraft, mythically grown to Atlantian proportions by legions of internet av fans who simply "like the way they look." Not that there's anything wrong with that... The Flanker design, in general, is a fairly sound (if very heavy) maneuvering fighter wrapped around some incredibly poor avionics, human factors, and weapons systems. That's the baseline, mind you. Note that latter variants (your Su-30MKx series) have some very capable avionics on them....of course, most of those are foreign origin, including heavy Israeli, French, and even Chinese equipment. Like I said, not a bad design aerodynamically, although at high internal fuels its significantly less capable than most of its demo's would have you believe. That's a good thing for combat duration and force projection, and it WOULD be a good thing for BVR combat, if the jet had some better equipment for it. Personally, I think the PLAAF F-11 design will probably be the high end of Flanker combat capability: baseline Russian airframe design, with the benefits of fuel, range, endurance, plus totally new internal avionics, including late generation EW gear, advanced BVR weapons (PL-12), new gen datalink...etc. Pretty much overcomes the avionics limitations of the original design. Getting back to the Fullback....okay, if the Leninets radar is out, then what is it using now? I haven't seen any data to indicate a new set of gear has been fitted, and I KNOW none of the emerging Russian AESA's fit in that squashed nose.... Finally, why this obsession with the toilet? Seriously, that is NOT something I'd want to be hauling around in a tactical aircraft, for SO many reasons. And if it really comes down to crew endurance, once you get much beyond 8-10 hours, its been PROVEN that crew efficiency and effectiveness drops like a rock (mental alertness and psychological "edge" plummet). Not sure that standard relief systems wouldn't be able to get you to at least that point.... Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 :D G'day Waco, Ya know what they say. When ya gotta go, ya gotta go. :), Ross. ps. Maybe some of these guys are annally retentive Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) Not that there's anything wrong with that....Getting back to the Fullback....okay, if the Leninets radar is out, then what is it using now? I haven't seen any data to indicate a new set of gear has been fitted, and I KNOW none of the emerging Russian AESA's fit in that squashed nose.... Finally, why this obsession with the toilet? Seriously, that is NOT something I'd want to be hauling around in a tactical aircraft, for SO many reasons. Is that top line a Sienfeld reference? :) I'm sure you've seen more data on Russian aircraft than any of us. My first thought about the toilet would be a weight penalty. Whether its high-performance aircraft or high-performance cars...weight is evil. On the F-14. I don't believe it would have such iconic status if it were not for some movie they made in 1986. Chappie Edited March 9, 2007 by Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 You have GOT to be kidding me. I see the Super Hornet attacked by pretty much ANYONE, ANYTIME it gets posted. Seriously poor example. The US planes don't get attacked the way Sukhois usually are. I didn't mean critique, I meant those bad Tweet jokes. I wouldn't hijack a thread with stupid jokes without any linkage to the original topic. That's childish. You're reasoning about the Flanker seems rather sound, Waco. Basically. Link to post Share on other sites
dreammh Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 About this toilet thing, there is really no need to make jokes. They have the space, they make a toilet, and pilots use them. Just because the western fighters don't use them, toilets in fighters became a joke? You don't see many fighter where you can actually stand up and go to a toilet, do you? The Su-34 is indeed a beauty, and just so different from other flanker class. IMHO, its the most aggressive looking thing flying today, not counting the mosquito in my room. And i like the way pilots board the aircraft from underneath the nose undercarriage. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 On the F-14. I don't believe it would have such iconic status if it were not for some movie they made in 1986.Chappie Whoa Chappie, Movie ? What Movie ? Gregg (Who remembers a little F-16 movie called Iron Eagle ...) Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) It's former Mir Space Station's toilet. OK enough already............... Not only is it NOT the toilet in a Su-34, it is also NOT the toilet on a MIR space station It is a photo of the toilet on a MOCKUP of the MIR Space Station - taken by me on Thursday 29 August 2002 at Star City, on the outskirts of Moscow. We were visiting Star City - and were shown around the MIR mockup... and I took this pic of the toilet..... The rest of the photos on that same day - from Chkalovskaya, Star City and Monino are at :- http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits...2002_day01.html A report of the whole trip is at :- http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits...oscow_2002.html The toilet photo has been hijacked by some Chinese website - and puts in an appearance every now and then round the world purporting to be the Su-34 toilet. I am getting fed up having to correct it !!!! Ken Edited March 9, 2007 by Flankerman Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Whoa Chappie, Movie ? What Movie ? Gregg (Who remembers a little F-16 movie called Iron Eagle ...) Oh my...that was an awful movie. Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I am getting fed up having to correct it !!!!Ken Get used to it, sir. That crapper will haunt you for as long as you live. Sorry Link to post Share on other sites
Reyes Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Whoa Chappie, Movie ? What Movie ? :blink: Gregg (Who remembers a little F-16 movie called Iron Eagle ...) TOP GUN With Tom Cruise... ..."Take my breath awaaaaayyyy....!" :wacko: Ughhh! That's it, I'm sick now! Before "Top Gun" there was a much better movie : NIMITZ. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) About this toilet thing, there is really no need to make jokes. They have the space, they make a toilet, and pilots use them. Just because the western fighters don't use them, toilets in fighters became a joke?You don't see many fighter where you can actually stand up and go to a toilet, do you? The designers of the F-15, a relatively large and heavy fighter, debated for quite a while over whether to include the built in ladder in the jet, because of the weight penalty (around 10 pounds) it incurred. Any extra weight on a fighter that can be avoided is. In this case there is also the storage space that has to be devoted to it, which could be used for avionics instead. I've flown a 10 hour sortie in the Eagle, and know people that have done 14 hours without a toilet. It's not an airliner; you make due. I also find it humorous how some people latch on to the oddest, most extraneous items and decide it increases a jet's combat potential. The Su-34 is indeed a beauty, and just so different from other flanker class. IMHO, its the most aggressive looking thing flying today, Sorry, but it hit quite a few branches, when it fell out of the ugly tree. Regards, Murph Edited March 9, 2007 by Murph Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) The Su-34 is indeed a beauty, and just so different from other flanker class. IMHO, its the most aggressive looking thing flying today, Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder but it is not a word I would use to describe it. When it first came out and saw it sitting along with the Su-27 well the nickname Platypus was appropriate and I could not for the life of me see building a model of it, since that time it has grown on me, I have built a model that I am glad to have in my collection, ( http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....showtopic=46350 ) and admire its functional look and see the appeal, and all loaded up I will grant the aggressive look, but beauty…. No :D And just to show that I am not picking on the East, I take the same view on my own F-16, when you look at the BL 60 F with all the CFTs, spine, 600 gal tanks, humps/ bumps/ scoops, and add the weapons load out - aggressive...Yes, Functionally appealing...Yes, Beauty...NO Regards Jim Barr Edited March 9, 2007 by Jim Barr Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 ...Sorry, but it hit quite a few branches, when it fell out of the ugly tree.Regards, Murph Now that was probably one of the most honest posts that I have read in this entire thread...and one that I agree with myself! Disclaimer: Nothing in the post above was written with malicious intent towards non-western aircraft, it was also not meant to be inflammatory to fans of Soviet/Russian aircraft, derogatory towards the same, or humorous in any shape, way or form. It was merely the expression of one members opinions of one specific aircraft design. Link to post Share on other sites
dreammh Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Sorry, but it hit quite a few branches, when it fell out of the ugly tree.Regards, Murph Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder but it is not a word I would use to describe it. When it first came out and saw it sitting along with the Su-27 well the nickname Platypus was appropriate and I could not for the life of me see building a model of it, since that time it has grown on me, I have built a model that I am glad to have in my collection, ( http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....showtopic=46350 ) and admire its functional look and see the appeal, and all loaded up I will grant the aggressive look, but beauty…. No :) And just to show that I am not picking on the East, I take the same view on my own F-16, when you look at the BL 60 F with all the CFTs, spine, 600 gal tanks, humps/ bumps/ scoops, and add the weapons load out - aggressive...Yes, Functionally appealing...Yes, Beauty...NO Regards Jim Barr Beautiful or not are personal views. Nothing to argue about. Every aircraft have their fans (and haters). I say its beautiful and I am not the only saying that. Period. The F-16 with CFT is beautiful too, IMO. One thing about F-16, they are versatile in looks. One moment they look like a slender and agile dogfighter, another moment they look like a small bomber ready to dish out damage. Next thing we know, they look like some juggernauts loaded with dangerous gadgets. Ugly? Rafale with CFTs. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Bratton Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I sent a post card to .... my then gf (the one now a lesbian) that had a picture of a Tweet with red letters on it. I doubt she'd have switched teams if you told her about the Geography Bee thing - that's almost as big of a lure as telling a girl you're an internet modeling forum discussion group moderator. Hot and cold running chicks, I hear. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) One of the more attractive-looking tactical aircraft these days.... ....wait for it..... Even the family model doesn't look bad, but I'll agree that adding CFTs to the Rafale really woofs it up. Is the Su-34 "ugly"? I haven't decided yet, although it's requirements have resulted in what is certainly one of the more ungainly-looking tactical aircraft to have taken flight in the last 15(?) years. Maybe "weird" or "unique" is a better way to describe it. Edited March 9, 2007 by Trigger Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Diamond Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I doubt she'd have switched teams if you told her about the Geography Bee thing - that's almost as big of a lure as telling a girl you're an internet modeling forum discussion group moderator. Hot and cold running chicks, I hear.Cheers, Sean :lol: Don't worry though, there were rumors that she was always a lesbian, but she was using me to scare away other guys and questions. Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Diamond Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 As for the way F-16s and CFTs look in IMO, I think while the older Vipers are sexy and agile, the later models with CFTs and extra sensors look like the sweet sexy woman that we fell in love with 20-30 years ago has now become a fat chick with zits all over her face. Earlier F-16s F-16s with CFTs Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I have built a model that I am glad to have in my collection, ( http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....showtopic=46350 ) And a very nice Su it is, Jim! Very nice! I doubt she'd have switched teams if you told her about the Geography Bee thing - that's almost as big of a lure as telling a girl you're an internet modeling forum discussion group moderator. Hot and cold running chicks, I hear.Cheers, Sean That's got to be the funniest thing I read all week! One of the more attractive-looking tactical aircraft these days........wait for it..... <_< Hehe, nice one... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts