dark light

Amiga500

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 2,151 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2227242
    Amiga500
    Participant

    For nonaligned nations the Gripen makes sense. The events in Ukraine just changed the paradigm, for better or worse depending if you own stock in L-M.

    NATO and the US badly want Ukraine within their sphere of influence.

    Yet are pretty powerless to stop the Russian’s taking Crimea (outside a few meaningless sanctions).

    I think it will make many nations pause and wonder just what are they getting for their “alignment”.

    [Another, not totally unrelated point – good luck getting Iran and North Korea to abandon nukes now, Ukraine did it under international “guarantees” of security in the 90s, where are those guarantees now?]

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2228875
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Ouch you hurt me due to my phd…

    i wrote a voluntareely oriented piece on ottawa citizen, but the part about “could architecture” of RBE2 is documented…

    He was talking about Loren Thompson… who has written a thesis on “bullsh!tting for money”

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale, News & Discussion (XV) #2229141
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Perhaps they could have probes fitted. Plenty of M2K-5 out there with them.

    That is not a straightforward upgrade.

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale, News & Discussion (XV) #2229143
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Qatar has ordered 2 A330 tanker/transports. The Qatari M2K aircraft do not have a refuelling probe. Does this mean that Qatar is preparing to buy fighters with refuelling probes? eg Rafale

    Or…

    Eurofighter.
    F/A-18.
    Gripen.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229462
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Of course, saving weight in the radar raises another issue…

    I’d an all nighter last night… my brain is mush – ???

    [It’d add a bit of nose up tendency, but the F-35 is pretty short and the weight difference wouldn’t be very much. But I guess that is not where your going with this…?]

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229469
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Smaller components mean less power and less heat generated for the same RF output.

    What world are you living in man?!?

    Smaller components = You can fit more components in. Which pushes up overall power draw. That has always been the case.

    Name one fighter that has not experienced weight growth, power requirement increases and cooling requirem through service life!!

    One of the specific benefits of GaN over GaAs is lower power and heat per transmitted watt of RF energy.

    But what happens is you’ll have more T/R modules, and you’ll try and pump more power into them to get more RF energy which equals overall power and heat increases. Always been the case.

    So, almost 10 times the performance for less power and less heat.

    But, if you look at CPUs and GPUs from 10 years ago… well actually, maybe not, ‘cos that would have been the Pentium 4 disaster, but say, 20 years ago and you’ll instantly notice a few things.

    – Much less power consumption 20 yrs ago.
    – Much less heat to be dissipated 20 yrs ago.
    – Much smaller heatsinks as a result 20 yrs ago.
    – Much smaller PCUs as a result 20 yrs ago.
    – Much, much less overall performance 20 yrs ago.

    The increase in performance/electrical watt and performance/thermal watt has not been accompanied by a decrease in overall wattage, either thermal or electrical.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229520
    Amiga500
    Participant

    F-22 uses systems from the 1990s. F-35 uses equivalent mission systems, but with 2000s technology (ESM, radar, MLD, displays/fusion, IFDL, SATCOM, IFF, VHF/UHF, Etc). The speed and capability has improved (proof is tripling the number of lines of code), yet the form factor and power/cooling requirements are not significantly different.

    You are comparing across two aircraft types, not upgrades of the same airframe.

    F-35 TR1 (during Block 1 upgrade)

    CPU cards went from single core to quad core

    Another example is shrinking T&R modules

    Yes, exactly. Shrink your T/R modules and you can fit more of them in your radardome.

    More T/Rs = More power consumption = More cooling.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229652
    Amiga500
    Participant

    You know the answers to those questions. Now tell us why the same trend will not apply to a fast jet’s avionics.

    When have those trends ever applied to fast jet avionics when performance was increased?

    Name a few examples.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229665
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Replacing equipment to deal with obsolescence only will typically result in one or more of weight, cost or power consumption saving.

    When you take the opportunity to improve performance, then all 3 can* start to creep up again.

    *historical evidence would suggest there is no “can” about it, it will as sure as night follows day.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229679
    Amiga500
    Participant

    I also don’t think making a switch from GaN to GaN for future radar upgrades would require upgrade to the back end systems and or additional equipment.

    So from this I can assume your thinking the F-35 will not make any attempt to improve the number of and power output of the T/R modules on the set?

    Way to go. Its now 2014. This thing is supposed to serve till 2040… assume it actually makes its IOC before 2040 of course 😉

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229702
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Oh my…

    So technological progress stops with the F-35… it is the zenith of weapon capabilities.

    I guess you better tell DARPA to stop all laser development. Or Raytheon, Thales, Ericsson, Almaz-Antey etc to stop developing ever more high powered and complex radar systems, requiring ever more high powered and complex EW systems to defeat them.

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2229919
    Amiga500
    Participant

    I mean that the Gripen NG program is an upgrade to an existing design.

    If it is the sensible thing to do, then it should not count against Saab.

    They want to keep cost down, therefore iterating off a previous design, with all the associated knowledge-base that comes with that, should be applauded as the correct engineering-led decision. It is not something cooked up by a crowd of MBAs in the press department that couldn’t point out where on a wing an aileron is, or by executives that need to pull the wool over politicians eyes.

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2229927
    Amiga500
    Participant

    The Gripen NG is not a new fighter.

    The reality is that the Gripen NG program is an upgrade, an extensive one to be sure, but no more so than has been the case for certain other 4th generation designs.

    Where do I see the Gripen NG slotting in in this comparison? Something in between the F-15SA and the Super Hornet.

    The Gripen NG is a new project in all but name. The assemblies carried over from the C/D are counted in single digits [the cockpit canopy, ejection seat, elevons and gun].

    Forget about the over the top reporting. The generation thing is a load of BS and the Gripen NG won’t have VLO.

    1v1 with no offboard input on either side, it is unlikely to stand up to an F-35, and will be toast for a PAK-FA or F-22. The absolute performance in any area is not ground breaking. But money is finite, and performance:cost is likely to be the best there is by a distance.

    If the cost differential of Gripen to F-35 does prove to be such that you could operate (for same cost) on a 3:2 or 2:1 ratio, then things change in working out which is best.

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2230036
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Maybe because a minimalist, low-cost, fighter is anything but new? (See F-5, Mig-21, or even F-16)

    Its more because new fighters are anything but minimalist and low-cost*. The Gripen tries to buck this trend, whether its succeeds or not will be proven in time.

    *that retain a high degree of capability

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2230039
    Amiga500
    Participant

    Even Saab doesn’t make these types of goofball claimes…

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]223978[/ATTACH]

    Here Saab ranks the F-35 as a distinct step up in capability from the Gripen and essentially on par with the PAK FA… and this is in a primarily air to air comparison.

    Yes… well, if you want to continue with the goofball claims, , you can afford to operate 2x Gripen for the (life) cost of 1x F-35…. and the F-35 is not close to being twice as good as the Gripen.

    Even the 3x more expensive F-22 isn’t as good as 2x Gripens never mind 3. :dev2:

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 2,151 total)