I know that things get better with lots of incremental changes in supporting tech… but none of that leads to “100’s” of times better in a 6-10 year timeframe.

I think its wishful to put any number out there.

There is potential for at least doubling the range in the next 10 years or less, but potential is not the same as what actually will happen.

Just think about it, the F35 is the first fighter jet to surpass the CPU performance of an iPhone 4/4S! Thats where we are today. Argus is one fine example of what higher CPU-power can do (I dont know the specs exactly). Unlimited (almost) amount of tracked objects, extreme resolution (1,8GP), 12TB/s bitstreams (local storage) etc.

The 12TB/s achieved in Argus is waaay ahead of the competition btw. (1m Terabytes/day (= 1 000 000 TB / (24h*60m*60s) = 11.57 TB/s) When we get systems like that on regular fighter jets it is possible to get extreme performance from old systems. To analyze that extreme amount of data requires post processing, great algorithms and lots of CPU power. Only the F35 comes close to whats needed today.

First off i think the thread should be named F35 debate thread part II..

Again, nowhere near 100’s of times better.

btw, even with that it took a major change in the technology behind the radar which took what 20-30 years.

I’ll even give you 12 years.. tell me one system from 2000 that is over 100x better now.

There are a few ways to improve the range.

1. More power
2. Higher resolution
3. Using narrower search (using “beams”)

Modern processors can work on #2 while AESAs can work on #3. This means that as long as there is a return/echoe (as in ANY return) it in theory can be filtered out by modern processors (it could be solved by tracking everything and only displaying confirmed objects).

But currently the systems are limited by the “noise” levels, every echoe above it will be tracked and every object below it will be ignored. Current radars try to lower the threshold, but thats just the first babystep.

But by tracking the objects below the threshold and display whats been filtered out it in theory gives the possibility to extend the radar range by a large magnitude.

Are we there yet? No. Will we get there? Most likely yes.
The F35 has the highest Gflop rating on any modern fighter jet. In a few years when we will see hundreds of Gflops in most fighters we will start to see real filtering. AFAIK F35 will be the first to reach that level (2’000Gflops).

Data filtering is pretty straight forward, but it requires a lot of CPU power. Just for comparison the F22 handles about 20Gflops and an iPhone 4S gives 51Gflops while the F35 offers 2’000 Gflops. Thats enough for advanced filtering.

That is what people always seem to forget. The F-35 suffers in clean comparisons because of the drag penalty associated with carrying everything internally.

Just as a comparison the Russians, in a similarily sized aircraft (F35C 15’800kg and Su47 ~16’400kg) managed to make the airframe very high performing. The larger F22 is also an exceptional jet in many regards, despite internal weapon bays.

The big penalty comes from making it short, letting it share fuselage with the STOVL-version and trying to make everyone happy. With the restrictions it had from the requirements it probably is as good as it gets, but we cant blame the internal bays for bad in flight performance when the Russians could build the Su47 or that the same company (LM) could build the F22 with even more missiles carried internally and flight performance that is awesome.

You can look at the profile of Pak FA and compare it to other stealth jets. Internal fuel carriage does not always mean high drag penaly.

http://picturehoster.info/images/00413066283871281287.jpg

17k feet is only 3 miles. Update the EODAS sensor chips and add recording equipment and you would not need a pod in the F-35.

Sounds like an affordable plan on one already cheap jet.

In raw performance (like speed, turn capabilities etc) I think the MiG has always been slightly superior.

When it comes to range (endurance), maintenance etc the F16 has been the top performer.

And then comes avionics. The early HMDS along with the wide angle seekers on the Soviet short range missiles gave it a great advantage for a while in WVR. But in general the avionics have been better on the F16 of the same era.

And most importantly the F16s usually have the better missiles. And thats what usually counts since the difference in performance is pretty marginal.

size doesnot say every thing , even the agm-84 have rcs = 0.1 m2 , without shaping , material and RAM it almost impossible to make an aircraft have RCS = 0.0001 m2 at 3 GHz like you claim which is incredibly low 😉
look at the Predator the EO turret is not stealth , the weapon carried out side , the wing is perpendicular head on and there is no source saying the Predator have been treated with RAM like Iron ball or anythings like that 😉 seriously you think that thing can achieved RCS = 0.0001 m2 ?? , i may believe the avenger or X-47 get that number but the Predator …..

and can you please quote exactly where in your link they say that Predator have RCS = 0.0001 m2 at 3 GHz

It has a spike (as i said a minimum) of about -50dbsm in the charts but had an average at ~-20dbsm with some polarity and -10dbsm with another.

Its remarkably small but thats the information I have and I have provided a source that we can either dismiss or put in the “maybe possible” folder. Its page 4.

First off, correcting you is not trolling.

Second off, the F-117 shootdown was one mission enabled by flawed mission planning on the part of the USAF.

But you corrected me by being wrong. They engaged 2 F117, one crashed and one was taken out of service. You said only one.

If the Serbs had actually found some way to effectively engage F-117s, or for that matter any other NATO aircraft, they would have gotten more than one.

It is hilarious how people try to spin Kosovo as anything other than a massive success for NATO air power.

Please show me those threads if they are relevant.

Oh I read what you wrote alright, but perhaps it is time that someone clued you in to the fact that not everything on the internet is true…

The Predator is absolutely not in any way a LO aircraft. In defended airspace they are in fact just slow targets.

Ok. Give me a definition with an RCS-span that is acceptable. LO/RO usually implies an RCS <1m², something that the MQ1 lived up to in the simulation.

If you have an official definition with exact numbers then please show me. APA uses the same scale as I do and thats the only one so far I have found with exact numbers. One occasion is here http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Irbis-BARS.png

If you look at that shape and see LO then you have no idea what you are looking for.

The prop alone rules out any possibility of LO, but if that weren’t enough…

Thats not up to me to judge, materials and angles also play a large role.

Round sensor turret: bad.

Still, its a small turret compared to the recce pods.

90 degree angles where wings and stabilizers meet the body: bad.

There is more to shaping than putting the wings in perfect alignment. Ground radars targets will have a very hard time getting any gain from those minimal extra returns of the 90 degree angles.

Complete lack of RCS reducing coatings/RAM: bad.

Any source for that? It doesnt look like a shiny aluminum airplane.

Honestly, what about the Predator looks stealthy to you? At a minimum it would be amusing to hear…

Compared to a fully loaded F16 it looks stealthy, compared to an F117 not so much. But then again, I have never claimed it to be stealthy. Thats something out of your fantasy world.

Have you ever actually seen a Predator in person? They are light weight, but they certainly aren’t “very very small” aircraft.

With a 15m wingspan and 8.25m length they take up a similar amount of space as an F-16. (turned sideways)

See the attachement for a size comparison with the other targets.

Compared to a loaded F16 that is fairly small the RQ1 is a very very small target.

If you compare the shaping for an RQ1 on a scout mission to an F16 from below with drop tanks, JDAMS, recce pod etc you will see that is is pretty obvious that the RQ1 is a very small target. The simulation data places it @ LO or RO levels if we use the same way of measuring as APA.

If the data I have is wrong then its a different story. But all i hear from you is insults. Its easy to critizise without bringing anything of your own to the table. Have fun with that.