You are talking nonsense yet again. Why do you keep on taking factual / somewhat factual information but interpreting them in absolutely bizarre & extremely biased methods? Correlation does not imply causation!
Chinese purchase of Su-35
- Thread starter flyzies
- Start date
That is a tale from Arabian Nights.
How could the engine be maintained if it is impossible to dissemble?
If it is the same person/source reported this welding non-sense and the earlier delivery of Su-35, I would immediately call the whole thing a hoax, and never bother to listen to any more news of Su-35. The saga is getting crazier.
He is always like that for years. Drifting, diverting, distracting, dragging unrelated, moving goal post, shifting subject, changing premises. After few exchanges you will give up talking with him.
vesicles
Colonel
It could simply be the size of the plane. Larger planes can fit larger and more powerful radars. And these larger planes need more powerful engines to push them... It may have nothing to do with direct link between engine power and radars.
this is the danger of making conclusions based solely on correlations.
One test: an F-15 has two engines while an F-16 has one. Is F-15's radar twice as powerful as the F-16's? even that correlation is dangerous...
The E3's radar is much much more powerful than those on fighter jets. Are E3's engines more powerful than those of the F-15 by the same magnitude? Those more knowledgeable might be able to help...
One example to counter this dubious argument about engine power.
Gulfstream G-550 "Eitam" used by Israeli Air Force as surveillance aircraft :
Engines : 2 * C4-11, 68.44 kN
Radar : EL/M-2085 AESA (2 Big + 2 Smaller Antennas) with up to 200 NM tracking range and 360° coverage.
F-18E Super Hornet, US Navy:
Engines : 2 * -GE-400, 97.9 kN
Radar : AN/APG-79 (One Antenna) With +70NM tracking range and 120° coverage.
Giving away power figures of radar (Max Power, Average Power, etc...), without actually know what does it really means is pure non-sense. Most of the time, a modern radar is NOT EMITTING, especially while it awaits returning echos from the pulse it just sent a few microseconds ago. And typically, most radar pulses last a few microseconds, or tens to hundred of microseconds if it is really long range (like a surveillance radar). This means that energy is stored in accumulators while the radar is not emitting (most of the time between 99% to 80%) and then freed in short bursts.
Antenna power is also correlated with antenna aperture size, but power does not makes everything, frequencies plays a part in range as well, Longer waves means longer range, but also a bigger antenna. That is why S/L band (1-2 GHz) is the privilegied frequency band for Surveillance and X-band (8-12GHz) is the privilegied frequency band for fighter-borne or ground based fire control radars.
I have seen another grave non-sense on a physical point of view : beam forming has nothing to do with frequencies, beam forming is a technique employed to mitigate location inaccuracies provocated by antenna beamwidth (measured in degrees), having a low beam-width makes air picture more accurate and tracking process more easier. Frequencies don't really play a part in this domain, rather, antenna shapes does, that is why some antennas tend to be oval because the goal is to mitigate beam width on a horizontal plan and thus getting a better spatial resolution.
Guys ... stop this nonsense about aircraft length and other dimensions correlating to performance !
If it is not related to the Su-35 in PLAAF service - and given the sparse information available I assume they do not ! - then simply do not post in this thread.
End of this debate.
Deino
If it is not related to the Su-35 in PLAAF service - and given the sparse information available I assume they do not ! - then simply do not post in this thread.
End of this debate.
Deino
Unfortunately Jane's is not particularly speedy or reliable regarding Chinese military news.
Quickly browsing all the posts since the holidays it seems that we still don't have any convincing photos despite the somewhat convincing reports?
Oh come on ! This has been discussed to death ... they were confirmed by Russia, even Chinese spotters followed them and we have two blurred but legit images. So there's really nothing more to deny.
Why the Chinese side want to keep this deal, delivery and their base + mission at low level I don't know, but all we can do is to wait for some clearer images some day.
If You like look also here:
Probably You need to scroll down a bit.
Deino
Don't get me wrong, I personally believe it's true and have always thought such a deal makes sense and could be a breakthrough not just for Chinese defense technology but also one for Sino-Russian defense ties. For these exact reasons I am sure is why the Chinese are keeping it quiet even more than usual. Just want to see some quality photos that can't possibly be photoshopped.