The computer processor complex was designed from day one to be able to expand in several ways. These include not only switch to newer micro-processors but also the 50% increase in the number computer modules in the processor. The processors for flight control and some other functions are air cooled. The power supply modules and other high powered circuits are designed for the F-22’s avionics are cooled with polyalphaolefin (PAO) liquid coolant to carry away heat generated by the supplies’ power-conversion process. Other avionics units are air-cooled, flight safety critical systems, such as the flight control system.

The F-22A will get a HMDS in a future upgrade (2012 or 2015). No, it won’t be like the F-35’s. From what I have read it will be more like the F/A-18E/F’s. Due to the F-22’s success, the HMDS is rather low in priority, a nicety not a necessity.

Nice post Adrian. Still…
The heat is drained to the fuel, then what? Heat is always a problem, new avionics that produce the same amount of heat will be lighter, smaller and many times powerful. Just look at the transistor count! It has grown 2000 times since the 1990 🙂 add the increasing frequencies on top of that.
Moore´s law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore’s_law

Also it could probably heat regulate better(energisave) and probably in the end create less heat.

So people at this forums are wrong when they say its “lots of” hardcoded SW?(harder to replace HW)

Nice to here about the HMDS!

Do you know what a req spec is? I am not looking for ‘hear say’, journalists opinions or what forumers think are the requirements – I want to see the official document stating what the exact performance parameters are…..

In this case its ‘whole’ not ‘hole’.

Cheers.

You have to believe SAAB, that they never delivered the information needed for a simulation, nor did the swedish goverment. You can read that in news and in pressreleases. The economics part is not based on the knowlege of the gripen platform or the information given by saab and the swedish goverment.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

The Norwegian goverment wont release the information used in the simulation to any swedish counterpart(or any one else). Thats in the news.

Yet, 2/3 of a Western Type would offer far more capability……….

all contenders offers far more….

Looks like YOU’RE the one who took it OT.

“Well look att the flyaway prices of any modern jet.
Gripen has it´s 20:th upgrade in the loop. and its still cheap..”

So “to be a funny guy, running around in circles…please stop and get back to subject..” or at the very least have your daddy help you post so you don’t make these mistakes.

:rolleyes:

The tangent was the cheapness of the Gripen. That lead to the “easy to be cheap if you don’t have to worry about stealth” comment. 🙂

Y seems to be a funny guy, running around in circles…please stop and get back to subject.

Again, Strucural stealth has nothing to do with the subject, which are
hardware avionics
hardcoded software
upgradability or
the price of it.

Gripens avionics is as stealthy it can be, and is still evolving, this evolution flows easy och non-costy. That was my point.

And i didnt say that gripen is specially stealthy craft, except that is natural small/composites and good EW and use lots of passive modes throu its datalink.

Now back to F-22 avionics as a subject..

The AESA is the first of its kind, and it should have been a problem for computoral power for the signal processing unit. It should be bulky, heavy and a big heatcreator.. A upgrade, especially in non-hardcoded manner, with standards and COTS, will enhance computer power, energi, volume, and make it easier to upgrade in the future.. and CHEAP!
Also scrap the HUD and add the same HMD as F-35 and its on top in every aspect again.

Have only a little idea of the datalink, but if its only MIDAS, i think it has to evolve otherwise its not on top.

That happens when you use don’t have to be stealthy. Super Hornet is cheap too. How much is the Gripen compared to a late model Eagle?

What is structural stealth have to do with avionics? Superhornet is not as cheap even thou it is produced in greater numbers…thou it has AESA to date…

NoAF data shows 16 F-16s destroyed in 300,000 flight hours. NoAF perceives the way they operate their airplanes causes a higher attrition rate than would be observed in Swedish 3 per 120,000 data. There is not a technological chasm that would account for the difference in NoAF F-16 attrition rate and Gripen attrition rate other than how the F-16s are used. You can try to make an argument that NoAF’s perception is wrong, but the ultimate decision about how NoAF wants to account for attrition risks is Norway’s alone.

Did NoAF apply the same rules to JSF? I don’t know.

So wrong you are, i hear you never read any crash reports..

So you saying thats the platform robustness, situational awareness and safety features has nothing to do with crashrate?!?!? And theres never is any technological errors?

Just bad pilotskills in norway?

Or do you mean that swedish-, hungarian-, czech-, now south african-, empire testpilot school- pilots only sunday siteseeing?

What i mean about situational awareness is the way the pilot gets vital info, how the systems aiding the pilot, or make automated decisions of what to do and do them.
its alot of technostress in a 3 gen fighter..

Look at the planes availability in operation, and you see what i´m talking about.. For gripen thats 95-100% in all using AFs..

Also, gripen never have experienced any engine failure in those 120000 flight hours! thats kind of outstanding if you ask me. Long live the RM12! 🙂

Its called politics……………Regardless, the Gripen as a platform is no better than the F-16’s that Norway already operate. Clearly, the F-35 is the superior product.

And you have clearly nothing to say…as usual…