kilcoo316Also the F-22 will be flying for 40 years (if not more). What would the condition of today’s F-15s be in 40 years? How competitive would they be then?
You also have to ask yourself how competitive the F-22 will be in 40 yrs time.
If and when a viable laser defence network becomes operational, all current weaponry will be rendered obsolete in much the same way jets rendered propellors obsolete at the beginning of the cold war.
So the question is valid, if a little incorrect. I would rephrase it to be: Is it worthwhile investing so much in technology that looks likely to become redundant a few years into its service life?
kilcoo316AESA arrays can be arranged throughout the airframe, so you would have arrays of sufficient dimensions if smart design was used. The power consumption is a problem.
A missile would always be within LOS range of the UAV, as would the target.
Putting missiles on the UAVs would start to dilute their roll, and would result in greater complications = cost. They would also have to go to the target area, fire missiles, return and reload. This way there is a shorter distance between launch point and reload station. A SAM can reload from the ground immediately for instance. An aircraft, not quite as quick. It also means all the manned aircraft are still worth something, and not obsolete [comparable to pre-dreadnought battleships].
kilcoo316AESA does operate in various wavelengths – with the right software programming, it can operate in them simutaneously. Just like the APG-77 for instance…
Why would it be impossible to make a UAV able to handle 20g’s? Drop the pilot out of an existing airframe and you can beef up the structures while maintaining the same fuel fractions and T/W. Thats without considering an optimised airframe.
They need not be much different in cost from existing aircraft if an AESA comparable to an existing aircraft is used- indeed, no pilot training = much reduced cost. If a larger more powerful system is desired, like shoehorning a pukka AWACs array in, obviously price will rise, but the low cost of T/R modules would keep the expansion cost surprisingly low.
Where do you get the idea a large radar = hercules? The E-3 is the size it is to house the people operating the radar, they have designed AESA arrays for AWACs that fit easily onto RJs, again, the vast majority of room is for the people to operate the system. But why the need for people when it would be an automatic slave over datalink?
The NEZ doesn’t matter, its irrelevant, I’m not taking about out-running the missile, I’m talking about turning inside it.
kilcoo316Hmmm, i wouldn’t give 100 % credit to the article, no matter where it appeared. One obvious mistake: the APG 79 has the latest tyle-type not the older brick-type.
I guess it was a typo – meaning the 63v(1) and not the 79.
The AIAA is as reliable a source of information as you will get – anywhere.
kilcoo316Hmm, just thinking aloud…
What if they stick a big AESA radar inside a UAV, and let it [well, a swarm of them] trawl the battlefront for F-22s/B-2s/F-117s…
Then MiG-31s/Su-27s etc launch long range AAMs from a safer distance and let the UAV conduct terminal guidance
It (the UAV) should be able to outmanouvre any missile [regularly estimated that a missile has to be 4 times as manouverable as a target to kill it] – a UAV should be able to pull 20+ g’s. So the F-22 will have a hard time neutralising the sensors…
kilcoo316Radars how boring. Radars are so ld fashioned in todays world off air combat. The key to success lays with datalinks and information superiority. Now if you can launch an AMRAAM without turning on your radar just using data recieved from other platforms, then we are talking, if can do this while flying a stealthy jet that is practicaly undetectable for the enemy, we are talking superiority.
Speaking of, did you hear the craic about the new A-50?
It can slave to missiles.
kilcoo316Not any longer.
Interesting to note that the press release came after the second firing, and not the first.
Oh, when did they end that?
First was a balls up then?
kilcoo316Thanks. So essentially they’re borrowing technology and parts from the APG-79 to improve the AESA APG-63. Makes you wonder why they don’t just make a version of the APG-79 with more T/R modules and use that. :confused:
Could be that it would require a total avionics refit and they wish to avoid that. [as in, the back end of the -63 can comunicate with the F-15s displays etc etc and they couldn’t be arsed redoing the whole thing].
Oh, and it says Singapore ordered the v(3), were they single or 2 seat eagles they got?
kilcoo316What in the world makes you think that? If it were based on the APG-79 it would be called the APG-79. It’s possible it’s designed to use the same T/R modules as the APG-79 but that’s not the same thing at all.
Here:
Aerospace America Feb 2006 page 19:
However, in 2004 the Air Force changed its plans to upgrade 400 F-15s with the APG-63(V)1, deciding instead to install the APG-63(V)3 AESA antenna upgrade on the entire 224-aircraft F-15E fleet, beginning this year. The (V)3 is essentially an updated APG-79 front-end (antenna and power supply) and APG- 63(V)1 hardware back-end. For the F-15E, the antenna size is increased to 0.9 m (36 in.) diam, and improved tile T/R modules with a greater mean time between overhaul are used, rather than the Super Hornet’s brick T/R modules.
The APG-63(V)3 is 400 kg (900 lb) lighter than the (V)1, and will also improve reliability by 500% (AESA T/R modules seem to be living up to their billing as rarely needing maintenance or repair). This would leave only about 180 F-5Cs with the (V)1 (and 18 with the earlier (V)2 AESA), and (V)1 production line shutdown was begun in 2004, to be completed this month. The F-15E is slated to remain in service until 2035, with the F-15C continuing until 2025, to serve alongside the F-22A.
But by late 2005, the Air Force was reportedly seeking an even newer radar for the F-15E. Boeing claimed a competition was likely, with a version of Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-77 from the F-22A competing with an upgraded
Raytheon APG-63(V)4. The (V)4 would have the (V)3 AESA antenna but more back-end components from the Super Hornet, including its processor and other upgrades.
Which ties in with:
Raytheon has built one prototype APG-63(V)3, but the radar had until recently appeared unlikely to secure production approval. The USAF plans to upgrade its F-15E Strike Eagles with the newer APG-63(V)4 variant from 2008, which will reuse transmit/receive modules from the (V)3 and introduce updated processors from Raytheon’s APG-79 AESA radar installed on Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Block 2 Super Hornet. The radar upgrade would enable the aircraft to track an expanded group of threats, including cruise missiles.
kilcoo316Oh, and BAe have relationships with Saab for promoting the Gripen IIRC.
kilcoo316So would that mean python is not compatible with the F-35?
If LocMart arrived with a sneaky agreement with Hughes etc it would go along way to securing new markets for the US missile companies.
kilcoo316Ah, cool then, if they were first, that’d explain it. When was that, the first AESA eagles? And we’re talking bout f15c being modernized, right? Would i be correct to assume that if any further eagles get AESA while being modernized, they’d be some new versions comparable to tech to apg 80?
The APG 63 (v3) is based on the APG-79 in the Subpar Hornet [indeed, its the E/Fs only redeeming feature in my eyes].
Meant to be much lighter and… well, better it should be as modern as ye get.
kilcoo316It is true that new threats forced US to do better and better.
And visa versa. Its the same for everyone.
If we didn’t try to beat the other guys, we’d still be running around with Fokker Eindeckers, F.E 2s and Morane-Saulnier N’s.
kilcoo316That’s a good one! Can you tell us what part of F 22 was influenced by the Su 27?
The design parameters.
If it wasn’t for the MiG-25 would the F-15 have been built to be the aircraft it was?
If it wasn’t for the Su-27 and the MiG-29 threatening the Eagle do you think the F-22 would be the aircraft it is?
kilcoo316http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/cobra.html
Explains the possible uses of cobra/hook much better than I could [but more towards gunfight scenario admittedly].
The Su-37’s astounding maneuvers included the “Super Cobra”, demonstrated for the first time. In this move, the aircraft enters with a speed of 400 kmh and is pulled through to an alpha of 135 deg, then recovered to the vertical and held in place for 4-6 seconds. The nose is then allowed to fall to the horizontal position, emerging at 150kmh with no loss of height. Another used the thrust vectoring to flip the Su-37 onto it’s back, and then to rotate it upright and continue in the opposite direction. The most impressive manouver was the kulbit (somersault). With an entry speed of 350 kmh the aircraft flipped onto it’s back (a full 180 deg) facing the opposite direction, inverted and practically stationary. After ‘pausing’, thrust vectoring completes the kulbit (a 360 deg somersault) with a nose down angle of 30 deg and an exit speed of 60 kmh.
http://www.electronicaviation.com/sections/articles/Military/131
400 kph is 215 kts or thereabouts – but turn bleed will rapidly bring speed down to a point where cobra/hooks are possible.
HMD/HMS is merely a designation distinction on the F-22 [eventually]. And the pilot turning his head will be slower than the pilot turning his head with the aircraft turning too. [assuming both have same scan to aquire times].
I think you’ve far too much faith in IR missiles to perform miracles to be honest – I don’t see any 180 deg engagements being successful unless the enemy f__ks up… badly.
LOAL is different for a radar based missile as the radar field is wider than an IR field. As I said earlier, too wide an IR sensor field and you risk hitting friendlies.
Sign In
