From the limited information that’s been published about the ALR-94 it would seem that it employs a total of 19 antennas which are housed in four apertures located in the leading edge root and trailing edge of each wing. Frequency coverage of the ALR-94 is said to extend to 18 GHz with an instantaneous bandwidth exceeding 500 MHz.

Date: 7/1/2000; Publication: Journal of Electronic Defense; Author: Sweetman, Bill

The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/845.html

“Every time the F-22A flies we learn more. We can now spiral advanced technology developed for the F-35 back into the Raptor.” The similarities between both sensor suites allow for an unprecedented degree of technical cross-fertilization. The F-35’s iterative flight test program will contribute significantly to JSF maturation, as well. The flight test schedule is built around a series of periodic block releases, allowing content and function to be influenced by test results.

The question though is against what type of emitter ? without knowing the conditions that this performance is achieved under there is no way to know if it’s a fair comparison with the detection range quoted for Spectra or Praetorian/DASS.

For simplicity’s sake, let’s just use a SAM radar.

But the whole purpose of MLD or MAWS is that they allow the detection of an inbound missile at a range which allows that missile to be successfully countered.

Those are 2 different systems though, neither of which will detect missiles launched at extreme BVR ranges.

My point was that given the performance of PIRATE the Typhoon may be capable of detecting the F-22 long before it can close to a range that will ensure the missile isn’t defeated by the alerted Typhoon, even on kinematic performance alone.

The range against an approaching target is much lower than against a receding one though(especially if the F-22 isn’t using afterburner), so it’s by no means a foregone conclusion that the PIRATE will detect further than the WEZ of an AIM-120D.

I’m not saying that the APG-77 or other current generation AESA sets won’t have an Electronic Attack capability, only that they won’t be capable of ‘frying’ the electronics of enemy fighters or missiles in any practical sense.

That’s not what the manufacturers have alluded to. They have indeed suggested that EA could be used like a directed energy type weapon, to damage electronics.

A few seconds is a lifetime in a dogfight though, and if an adversary has already got a bead on the F-22 then he’s going to be aware of that handicap.

If the missile is stowed internally then it will still take several seconds to deploy regardless of whether it’s then launched in LOAL mode.

By launch sequence, I mean door opening, missile firing, door closing. Not the length of time it takes to fire the missile itself. That entire process takes ~2-3 seconds, making it negligible with a LOAL weapon. If the F-22 was using the -9M, then it would open the doors prior to launching anyhow.

We shouldn’t forget that LM is the manufacturer of both aircraft, and they will always portray the attributes and capabilities of their products in a most positive light – just like any other manufacturer would in their position. This is the danger of using promotional materials supplied by the manufacturer as actual performance data, including interviews from company test pilots – particularly for an aircraft in a flight test program.

As for the F-22A, even though it did not meet all the objectives set forth in the design specification (like many aircraft,) it has been accepted into service, and remains the most formidable air superiority fighter currently in service.

It exceeded all of its performance requirements(range, speed, radar performance, RCS), it just was expensive and more maintenance intensive than originally hoped for.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35A-ctol-variant.html

>590 nm and that’s consistent with various sources. And even if the F-35 would achieve a 751 nm combat radius on internal fuel (~25% more than required in the KPP!), it still holds more internal fuel than a Typhoon with internal+external, while offering no range advantage!

4nm further on internal fuel, than a plane with EFTs sounds like an advantage to me, especially seeing as how the Typhoon would likely have to drop the tanks to engage in ACM, whereas the F-35 would suffer no G limits, etc…

It’s all in the eye of the beholder. It was supposed to beat Eurocanards by a wide margin – but it can’t. It’s neither stealthy, nor fast, nor maneuvrable enough.. In all mentioned aspects it’s good – but for something that shall be the best, good is not good enough..

Aside from the PAK FA and F-22, every other fighter will be using afterburners to get to M1.6 or faster. Not even the PAK FA and F-22 will fly M2 very regularly, much less a Rafale , Typhoon, Gripen, or Flanker(carrying weapons). So where are these massive speed advantages? As far as stealth and agility, just how stealthy and agile do you feel it needs to be, to be worthwhile? It outclasses everything but the F-22 in stealth, by large margins, and will have competitive agility combined with superior avionics. You’re completely dismissing these capabilities.

Just like I said before, LM has shot itself into its own foot. For years they have been trumpeting out F-22 as the best thing since sliced bread with SC, stealth and kinematic advantages, defined generations just to separate the new toy from everything else..

The bloody thing is that now they need to make money with a fighter that has none of the described virtues – is neither stealthy, nor fast. So they have to either disprove all the claims they have made before or make the F-35 look a bit better than it is by highlighting the few good things it has and keeping shut about everything else (especially speed, aerobatic capabilities and RCS).

Which is exactly what they’re doing.. And it’s funny to watch fans following whatever they spit out like a herd of brainless sheep.

It’s RCS is nearly as good as the F-22, and its physical performance exceeds the F-16/F-18, so I’m not sure what sort of bravo sierra you’re trying to sell.

You were the one that claimed that the F-22 was limited to M1.6 in SC, and M1.8 with afterburners, to prevent damaging the stealth coatings. My question was where the source for these claims was, so I could be enlightened. The issues I have are as follows-
A- why would there be more damage at M1.8 without afterburners, than with?
B- LM, the USAF, and F-22 pilots have said that the plane flies faster than the limits you mentioned.

Granted, the fog of war has a way of screwing up the best of plans, but….the F-35 will at least have advantages in situational awareness, whereas other planes will have a little more fog to overcome. The F-35 isn’t invincible, but it will have excellent odds in its favor.

It can “easily” fly sure.:rolleyes:

Yes, just like most every other modern fighter. Granted that’s not where it’ll spend a great deal of time, but certainly not unrealistic to get max missile range.

Well if the seeker gets no valid contact anymore it’s going to miss, INS/GPS or not.

the missile will be getting info via datalink from the plane too, along with its own seeker, etc… which is why it’s not as easy to spoof as you’re trying to make it seem.

Neither of these data is available, let alone that CAESAR was just a demonstrator. Real performance specifications aren’t known for any of these radars, the same is true for RCS figures and it’s not like the aircraft are automatically showing their chocolate side under all conditions.

Which is why I said a rough comparison.