No, APA is Carlo Kopp’s personal contribution to the community. Coming from a member as wrightwing that’s supposedly an attempt to discredit your posts. IOW he just played the Kopp-card on you.

He’s making all the Kopp arguments to try to portray things which he has no clue about.

another polite, correct post, are you going to make a habit of this 😀
does a 70k tail wind count :diablo:
i was using the numbers posted in this thread
there are a few missiles that are trying to improve the end game, but meteor seems to be leading
it will be interesting to see if we choose the meteor
lets not start with NEZ, this is hard enough

are you able to explain to us why the mica ir cant on-board passively engage at that range

The MICA can be guided via datalink, till it’s close enough for its IR seeker to acquire the target. The info can be derived via it’s ESM or IRST(and presumably through 3rd party targetting info as well).

Of course.

Just the same as the other guy targetting the F-35’s support platforms and leaving it having to fend for itself.

But that somehow is never considered on here.

The F-22 is good enough to fend for itself in such a situation. In comparison the F-35 is a little child that needs its hand held by off-board sensors.

Remove those sensors, and remove most the threat of the F-35.

Which other air force is going to compete at the systems level though first of all. Secondly, that’s not how the USAF and other partners feel about the F-35’s capabilities.

What’s the aperture size of PAK-FA’s L-band radar?

I don’t have the exact phyiscal dimensions, but with an antenna in the leading edge of a wing, it’s going to be much smaller than the main antenna. Additionally, it’s not going to have nearly the power output of the main array, and L band doesn’t have the resolution to track/guide weapons. Like I said, it’ll be useful to cue the IRST, but unless it’s LPI, it’ll serve as a beacon.

Do you know what does it do and can you elaborate “elaborate ESM”, more?

ESM- the systems that detect electronic emissions(i.e. radar, communications, jammers, datalinks, etc…), and then provide information about the location of the source.

And you know that how?

Aperture size, and resolution. If L band were a viable band for targeting, then why have an X band radar at all.

Could you elaborate this some more?

(BTW, does F35 have ALR94?)

The F-35 doesn’t, but it does have its own elaborate ESM suite.

would you like to explain to me how the mica ir is controlled and targeted by the osf/laser for ‘passive’ bvr ?
as well as when planes have a laser warning ?

also by your post, you are saying that wvr the HUD is sufficient againts the ef and latest us hms and weapons
something i disagree with

do you have a link to where the hms was successfully tested/fitted on the rafale ?

I think what he’s saying is that due to the passive engagement ranges, it’s not expected that a threat will get close enough for a HMS to come into play, if I’m understanding him correctly.

WIll it not have L-band radars as well?

It will indeed, but those won’t be of any help at long ranges, or for firing solutions. At best, they’ll help the IRST have an idea where to scan, but in doing so will let the ALR-94 know of the PAK FA’s presence in the process.

According to their research, 0.3m2 is the about the maximum that can be achieved by the shape of the aircraft (with current technology). It’s mentioned in one of their research papers from the early 2000’s…..since the application of RAM wasn’t mentioned, I’m assuming they meant just the shape of the aircraft.

It still doesn’t make sense from either a marketing, or gee whiz standpoint, to mention the RCS prior to adding RAM. I’m also somewhat skeptical about that .3m^2 claim being the maximum that’s achievable via shaping alone. You’re not going to get to VLO by merely slapping RAM on a design. Shaping is important if you’re wanting to get orders of magnitude improvements, with RAM playing a role in signature management.