SintraObvious trolling is obvious.
Could some moderator simply close this “thing”, oops, “thread”?
SintraNo apologies needed… 🙂
ps – if you ever come to Portugal, go that Palace (Pena palace) on the photo, it’s worth it
Cheers
SintraSinatra, the connection to the MIRFS for the APG-79 is anecdotal. The plan for APG-73 upgrades (what became the APG-79) what part of super hornet program.
SINTRA – Stunningly beautiful (small) mountain in Western Europe
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234421[/ATTACH]
SINATRA – Anonymous american chap (singer, or something like it)
Now that the important things are resolved (with evidences) :), lets go back to aviation.
While the evidence that Boeing intended to use the AN/APG-79 in the F32 is indeed anecdotal, the relation of this radar to the Hughes MIRFS effort is not, it was described by the specialized press by the end of the nineties.
Spud is right about the lineage of the -81, it was more or less a clean sheet design based on tech developed from APG-77, not so for the -79.
He was entirely correct, but the AN/APG-79 wich was, originaly, to be an APG-73 with an AESA antenna on it (AN/APG-73 RUG III), ended up with almost nothing of the old radar on it, it ended up being, also, pretty much a “clean sheet” design.
Cheers
SintraTR Modules
APG-79: 1,100
APG-81: 1,650
May i ask where did you get those numbers?
SintraThe F-35 started off better than the -79 thanks to it’s -22 linage and is just getting better.
Both the AN/APG-79 and the AN/APG-81 are direct by products of the late nineties Multifunction Integrated RF System/Multifunction Array (MIRFS/MFA) program. That program was funded in order to test the technologies that were intended to provide the radar for what was going to be known has the JSF. There´s enough anedoctal evidence to be taken seriously that Boeing intended to use very similar hardware (if not the same) to the AN/APG-79 in the nose of the F-32, but i will admit freely that there´s no quote specificaly stating “its the same radar”.
There is a reason why Northrup Grumman won the JSF radar contract and why neither Raytheon or Boeing claims LPI modes for the -79 on par with the -22 or -81.
There was no competition for the radar, Northrup Grumman teamed with LM, Hughes (Raytheon, cough) with Boeing, LM won.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1996/1996%20-%201610.html
AFAIK the only public available data that we can use in order to compare the two, is… the timeline. The AN/APG-81 is roughly speaking four years (ground/flight tests dates) younger.
Cheers
SintraUSSR is very different entity with non-Russian leadership dominating it for long time. that was the cause of its failure.
Congratulations, even by your dreadfull standards, that litle text of yours is a gem… Chauvinism of the worst kind is alive and well i see.
SintraIt is a joke news. The ibercal “aprils fool” joke, Decemeber 28th. Complete idiocy.
Yep.
SintraWho said that?
By the way the Cold War has ended in 1991, and this story of West and East on the global market for military aircraft its more like some kind of nostalgia than reality, after all if there are such division was real, the Russia had not been selling its military aircraft to China as an example.
After all this could be the best hypothesis from SAAB, and still this remains as an optimistic possibility, since there is none Gripen NG in operation in any Air Force around the World to check up this numbers.
If the Gripen has been so cheap to operate why the Royal Sweden Air Force had decreased from 200 JAS 39 Gripen A / B / C / D operation in 2004 to something like 100 JAS 39 Gripen C/D in 2008, and now has been intending to reduce in the near future for 60 Gripen E?
In fact this was a rhetorical question, once the reason should be very simple according to the Royal Sweden Air Force : the budget could not support such number of Gripen E greater than 60 in the near future.
So if the Gripen NG are indeed so cheap to operate this would be the only thing that would have been avoiding the Royal Sweden Air Force of to adopt the same concept from Royal New Zealand Air Force.
Operating cost in my humble opinion has been fundamental for civilians aircraft’s, but when it comes to military aircraft this concept it seems for me quite secondary.
In this case if someone make the choice for a fighter with this concept about less operating costs as the most important, then should be better to follow the example of the New Zealand.
In reason of that I do not believe that Royal Sweden Air Force has been chosen the Gripen NG because this were cheaper than the other alternatives.
Anyone here know about the operating state from the Gripen C/D with the South Africa Air Force?
My Source about the Gripen NG:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121119/DEFREG01/311190008/Sweden-8217-s-Possible-Gripen-Cut-Prompts-Force-Capability-Fears?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
How old are you? Do I really have to explain to you what happened to the Swedish defense budget from 1989 to till 2014? Do I really have to explain obvious things to you, AGAIN?
SintraBut its potential customers should must be waiting for another Black Friday promotion, since in normal selling days from SAAB the most likely that customers could find the value of the Gripen NG in the same way that Switzerland had found out.
Less expensive than any other Western fighter with the exception of the Lockhed Martin F-16V?
Next…
Sintrayes there is, in fact, the Russians were the first to incorporate datalink with the introduction of the MIG-31 (RK-RLDN and APD-518 digital secure datalinks)
the T-50 will use a TKS-2 datalink, a Russian Link16 (also used on the Su-27)
On top of my head, without going into the old magazines, the first jet fighter equiped with datalinks was either the F-106 or the F-35 Draken.
Cheers
SintraIf US shale revolution continue Canada military procurement will be essentially gone. The country is single commodity country. same is happening to Australia/Brazil/Norway/Middleast and indirectly to Israel/EU. I don’t see that many JSF customer buying large quantity per year.
Another bizarre day in JSR world…
SintraFunny, because in case you missed it…. The few you talk about include just about every NATO nation: Quick recount of the last 30 years of conflict involving Nato ( and aligned) nations.
Gulf War I- UK, France, Italy, US, Canada, S.A., Egypt, Oman, UAE, etc.
GWII- UK, US, Australia, Poland, Canada, Denmark, Spain,etc.
Operation Allied force- US, UK, Canada, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark,France etc.
Libya- US, UK, Italy, Canada, Belgium, France,Norway, Sweden,etc.
Afganistan-UK, US, Belgium, France, Italy, Canada,Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.
(and this is just a short list of participants for all the above)So we can pretty much refute that argument right there, and notice, Canadian forces were involved in all. The one aspect where RCAF fast jets were not a part (and were not needed) was Afganistan.
True, true.
In this case, the ability to plug into the pentagon logistic chain, pretty much kills the chances of a non USA airframe for the RCAF, that leaves the F-35A and the SH. The choice will be between LO and whatever industrial benefits the Canadian Industry gets out of the JSF program on one side and two engines and lower costs on the other side.
In the end the RCAF will acquire the F-35A (the question is “how many”?).
SintraEvery country doesn’t need fast combat jets.
Many countries suffer from a bad case of “me too” with respect to military acquisitions, knowing that they will never participate in any military action. Maybe its difficult to swallow their pride, or maybe its is intended to be a do-nothing jobs program. So they perform fly-bys and airshows. What a waste.
Only Ireland and New Zealand have been honest enough to admit they have no need for fast combat jets.
This story happened in 1989, the USAF Air Force 2 carrying James Baker was aproaching Lisbon, sudenly, out of the blue, four blips appear in the radars of the CTA´s of the Lisbon Airport. The four unknown aircrafts went into an intercept course (according to the newspapers of the time, they were flying supersonicaly) on the AF2. The Portuguese AF was warned, its nearest fast jet airbase, Monte Real is less than 200 km´s from Lisbon, a pair of aircrafts were scrambled, but they were subsonic A-7P, by the time they arrived at the scene, the AF2 had already landed, and the four unknown aircrafts had gone their way (and the sensors of the A-7P were completely incapable of tracing the UFO´s). Long story cut short, a) the unknown aircrafts were French from the Foch (today´s NAe São Paulo), b) in 1994, the Monte Real Air base received its first Viper. Dont know if this story is entirely correct, or if the Journos of the time had some “liberty” with it, but i think the idea is clear.
Most countries at least need an air policing capabilty and subsonic aircrafts with no sensors, dont do the job.
But i do agree, a “me too” atitude is a very common thing in military acquisitions.
Cheers
Sintra98% of sorties flown by fast jets are for training and exercises and only 2% are combat sorties.
For a jet with an 8000 hour design life, 2% = 160 hours = 65 sorties of 2.5 hour duration.
If Canada’s military planners could guarantee that Canada would NEVER fly a single combat mission, then they would be best served by a squadron of M-346s. Let them fly on Canada Day, fly at airshows and fly an occasional air policing sortie.
Because the competition is composed of completely useless aircrafts, Canada has a past history of acquiring the most expensive western combat jet available in the aloted time frame (remember the RCAF is planning to retire its F-14CF´s) and the two engines of the F-35A are a must over the gigantic areas up north?
Oh wait…
There are some very fine reasons why the RCAF will (almost certainly) go the F-35A, but that one…
SintraI could be wrong, but there were more F-16s built overall than F-5s
You are correct, and by quite a decent margin, between the T-38, the F-5A/B and the F-5E/F, there were slightly less than 3850 airframes built, the Viper surpassed the 4500 units some time ago.
Cheers
Sign In
