FalconDudeThe aircraft has growth room in it for avionics, sensors and other upgrades (such as EFT’s). Room exists because they left growth in for future capability to be introduced as and when the users see it appropriate. The timing of this capability induction obviously depends upon how badly the primary customers want it compared to other integration efforts such as weapons, sensors, pods etc. You could say that EFT’s are extremely important and identify it as a priority post SDD phase, or you could say that threats in the 2025-2030 period may warrant extra fuel and write that capability into block 5 for example for a future date.
Every aircraft has room for upgrades if you think about it. As tech advances you can make things smaller and less power consuming. So by replacing old avionics with new, you actually reduce weight and power requirements (if you choose to). Technically speaking that is true for everything.
FalconDudeActually by MBDA for a group of European countries: the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain & Sweden. Trials began on Gripen, & integration on Gripen is complete. Typhoon & Rafale integration is underway, & F-35 ASAP. The UK & Italy both want to put it on their F-35s, & obviously MBDA is keen to sell it to F-35 users.
No disagreement, company headquarters are in the UK though and that would directly affect negotiations (even on the legal issues) with the company that holds the right to the avionics source codes. In any case, no partner nation has access to the source codes so..
thanks for the addition though..
FalconDudeWho said anything about “nameless accusations”? Did you read any of the “f-35 can’t fire a gun till 2019” crap? That is a baseless accusation, and sensationalist.
Funny how negative news is celebrated, and oft quoted whether true or false, and full of boast. Yet the response gets, “meh, I’ll wait and see”
Btw, if you had read it, it also pokes holes in the CAS arguement very clearly, yet hey obviously only the negative MUST be true. Sad state of affairs, where was the hue and cry over the RAF deciding not to support the 27mm in the Typhoon originally? Yeah, there are no double standards applied.
I did read both of them, in fact I think I was the one who linked one of them. The article mentions “nameless reporting”.
There are always double standards, that is the real world, but also a very wise and very very old saying goes “where there is smoke, there is fire” which pretty much means there can’t be so many unfounded concerns about the F-35, something must be wrong somewhere, but that is a different discussion.
I don’t see the beast’s news torn apart just some information somewhat corrected.
FalconDudeInteresting rebuttal on ETOS issue by JPO, the gun issue was a non-issue as anyone following program already knew:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-programme-office-defends-gun-and-sensor-407694/
I don’t see anything spectacularly different to the “nameless accusations” ..some things cleared up, but far from being something to boast about.
FalconDudeAMRAAM, JDAM and GBU-12 are the basic weapons the Marines require for IOC. Block 3F will see most of the SDD weapons cleared. SDB would come later around block 4 (I assume here that it is a UAI thing). Meteor is dependent on the customer, testing schedule and how much money is put in to develop the version for internal carriage and integrate it into the platform. I do not think that the HARM is even included in the block 4 but i could be wrong. Haven’t been following the developments over the last few months closely, but from what i remember the plan still is to start rolling out LRIP9 jets with block 3F software around the end of 2017 early 2018.
One small correction (or maybe clarification) on that. Meteor is developed by the UK right? But the UK has no access to the source codes for the F-35. Actually if I am not mistaken nobody does. So integration of the weapon is do just dependent on the people who develop it, LM must play ball to their time schedule too. Of course this is all my impression and I could be wrong.
FalconDudeThis is something of an article of faith for him. People have explained over and over again why his theory isn’t true, but he always returns to it. (and almost always in the F-35 thread for some reason…)
Below is a still image showing the path an actual missile (AIM-9x) took intercepting a fighter in a steady turn.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234378[/ATTACH]Full video:
As you can see from the image/video the missile does exactly what you would expect it to do. It uses its thrust vectoring to pull an impossibly tight turn (for a manned aircraft) putting itself on an intercept trajectory with its target. Once the initial turn is complete the missile flies an essentially straight path to its point of impact with only minor course corrections.
What is important for Obligatory to realize is that neither the precise number of Gs, nor the target’s turn radius, nor its altitude, nor its speed, fundamentally change anything. Whether the target is sustaining 3Gs or 13G, and whether the target is at 10k ft or 40k ft, what the missile will do is the same. It will put itself on an intercept course and unless the target makes some radical new maneuver late in the missile’s flight the target is dead dead dead, period. There is nothing magic about flying a circle at 30k ft while pulling 9Gs or at any other altitude or load factor. The missile does not need to match or exceed the target’s sustained turning capability, it isn’t trying to duplicate the course taken by the target. Given accurate information on the target’s course and acceleration the missile will need make only fine corrections to its course to complete the intercept.
That is not entirely true, but it is very close.
First of all the videos you posted show WVR missiles which by all standards and from all sides are of excellent quality.
Pretty much today if you are locked by a WVR missile chances are you are dead, barring a missile malfunction or a quick release.
There is very little a pilot can do to avoid being hit that is why active systems are now considered to at least give a pilot a chance by blinding the missile’s tracker momentarily at least if not taking it out of action.
For BVR missiles however, an initial manoeuvre can lead the targeting system to an impossible intercept point (given the distance and the relative speed). So manoeuvring is not useless for BVR engagements.
FalconDudeEveryone that has bought the nh90 should have bought other helicopters instead…
+1
FalconDudeNo, many more. 70+ (some GLITs/MiG frames in here tho + one lost) between MiG-31BM and BSM. And by now one would think you would know it is written MiG, not Mig. 😉 And the contracts were for 60+50, 110 in total.
No, there is 27 Su-35S’ unless they quietly delivered 7 more. They handed over 2013 batch in very early 2014 for example.
20 Su-30M2’s iirc.
No ******* way there is 20 operational Su-33’s. More like 12-14 or so.
So far there is 57 Su-34’s, not 64.No. Only Su-27SM under the second contract (aka “SM2”) got FM1’s.
Only 24 Su-24M2’s around, but no clue how many Gefest ones.
Do you have an approximate figure for each type in operational status as we speak without taking under consideration sub-types?
FalconDudeThe China story is odd because the new VHF radar is the JY-27A Skywatch-V – the JY-26 is UHF.
Another observation: a quick search shows that F-22s do not always fly with the reflectors attached. Indeed, the assembly does not look very supersonic-compatible, with a flat front and rear. Whether there are also retractable augmentors is not known.
If that was an image search, we don’t always know where the images are from. Some may be from well within military reserved airspace with no dangers of in looking commercial radars.
As far as aerodynamics of the particular device, I don’t know so I won’t comment. Has the F-35 ever flown with one of these I just can’t remember right now.
FalconDudeluneburg lenses are effective as wideband devices. My experience with them is that they are very efficient for what they do and for such a simple design.
FalconDudeOkay, i’ll do a list by myself. Probably a bit wrong but people are free to provide additional sources to correct the numbers.
It is based on Zinchuk’s and Mladenov’s work from two years ago, published in air forces monthly, where they guesstimated then-applicable in service numbers of older planes. I used those figures then subtracted the number equal to newly produced planes to go into service since then. I used su30m2 to replace su27ub, su35s to replace su27s and su30sm to replace mig29 (a big if -i know. Maybe i’m completely wrong there). and of course su34 to replace su24.
So current (january 2015) figures of in-service tactical combat planes might look something like this:
70-120 su27s
30-ish su27ub
20-ish su30m/m2
60-ish su27sm/sm3
34 su35s
65-115 mig29-9.13
50-ish mig29ub (**diminished combat performance since it has no radar)
28 mig29smt
6 mig29ubt (**diminished combat performance since it has no radar)
35-ish su30sm
25-ish su24m
24-ish su24m (gefest upgrade)
30-ish su24m2
64 su34
60-ish mig31bm
40-60 mig31b
120-ish su25
60-ish su25sm
40-ish su25utg (**trainer variant)
60-80 su24mr (**diminished combat perfomance since it’s meant for support role)
10-20 mig25 (various recce variants. **diminished combat perfomance since it’s meant for support role)
60-ish yak130 trainers (**diminished combat performance)
100-200 L39 trainers (this figure is my guesstimate, i’ve no sources on this one whatsoever. **also diminished combat performance)
10-15 su-33
14 mig29k
call me naive, but I thought there were hundreds of Su-27, 24s and MiG-29 variants in service. These combined numbers are way less than I thought. If it is close to reality, it is an eye opener.
FalconDudeThere is more than just making the matter of making the aircraft safe in terms of navigation and air-traffic control. It is also important to prevent anyone obtaining useful data on the aircraft’s radar cross-section in all radar bands. So we can assume that unless flying a combat mission, the F-22 is fitted with active and/or passive RCS-augmentation measures that will provide a high signature in all radar bands.
Yes of course you are right.
An interesting news story – but the fact remains (as I have pointed out in other postings) that the US does not make its low-RCS aircraft or missiles available to the radar design teams to other nations to participate in radar tracking trials. So whether it is the Russian, Chinese, or Ruritanian radar industry that is claiming to have developed a stealth-defeating radar, we must take the claim with a pinch of salt. The best that can be said is that the radar has been designed to track whatever its developers think is the likely radar signature of a US stealth platform. That estimated RCS may or may not be correct.
If I were making radars I’d make a full scale replica of the plane of interest (22,35) and test the heck out of it. Obviously I would not know the exact fabrication secrets but that way I’d have an upper limit and then start taking away.
FalconDudeOh yeah… And let’s bring back the Spitfires.
Turbines, by design, are very efficient engines and their consumption is mostly related to their range of power at equal technology. And how funny it is, their power fulfill a requirement in line with their user…policy.
This twisted interpretation goes nowhere.
You’re not going to counter a J10 with a Reaper ! Damn, Is this still an aviation Forum ? Can’t we keep in 2015 the level of discussion above that level ?!
One will be able to within a few years. Drones and rpa’s are the considered future now. It may change by for now it is.
Which is another potential threat to the completion of the f-35 order list vis a vis price.
FalconDudeawesome find @eagle, and we need not second guess what the future is
It was always meant to be really.
FalconDudeIf we can’t talk about economics and engineering and stay on technical, maybe we can talk about the Chinese “Anti-sealth” radar?
“According to a Nov. 10 China-based article in the Global Times, a Shandong Province-based JY-26 recently monitored an F-22 flying to South Korea. Separated by the Yellow Sea, Shandong’s coastline is 400 kilometers from Kunsan Air Base and Osan Air Base, South Korea.”
It is quite possible the F-22 in question had its reflector on as an F-22 would never fly a non-mission route without it so that air traffic controllers can see it in their radars. Safe for navigation and all that.
Sign In
