hopsalotAAM BVR missiles in 1990s were not that good any way against semi competent airforce not matter what the origin. You should not underestimate the amount of money Russia spend on semiconductors after 1990s and hands on experience Russian specialist gained in Korean and other electronic manufacturers. That K-SAM along KSLV transfer.
STMicro French-Italian is another one cooperating with Mikron Russia. relentless competition from Asian manufactures is forcing EU based firms to cooperate with Russia.
Sure, because when I think semiconductors I think “Russia”… :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year
Russian semiconductor company Angstrem, which is based in Zelenograd near Moscow, has announced that it is to offer 90nm foundry services.
The company has apparently licensed 90nm process technology from IBM and wants to build a 110-130nm fab to house $300m worth of fab equipment.
The fab gear has been sitting around gathering dust since the company bought it from AMD in 2008.
It is not the only Russian chip maker which has cunning 90nm plans. Sitronics/Mikron has announced that it will double production with a new 90nm line capable of running 36,000 eight inch wafers a year.
http://news.techeye.net/chips/russian-chip-companies-on-the-up
Any curious when AMD rolled out its 90nm process?
A little over 9 years ago…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/13/amd_revenue_shipments/
Still, this is big progress for Russia.
hopsalotWhy has this forum become a safe haven for the likes of Tu 160?
As long as he doesn’t say anything positive about the F-35 he will do just fine around here.
hopsalotThe arguments regarding the F-35 based on simulations are pathetic, in the first place.
I guess if tomorrow Belarus AF make a simulation where a single Su-35 kills six F-35s, then we should believe that, too.
Sure, it is possible to make a biased simulation. Obviously simulations are only as good as the assumptions and data they are built around.
That said, what the RAAF has described sounds like nothing of the sort. If all you want to do is gin up a quick little video showing how your side will dominate when every possible assumption is tilted their way and the other side act like total idiots(essentially do what Repsim and APA did) then you don’t need pilots in the loop, or classified data, or even any real expertise.
Again you have to remember that there were people in the room with the necessary access to view the details of the simulation. The Air Marshal would not have described it in a manner inconsistent with the facts given that many in the room could be expected to ask for the details after the session.
Simulation isn’t perfect, but it is the best anyone has available right now. Besides, what would you have them do? Throw out their sophisticated simulations and just ask the opinion of a crypto-Norwegian on an internet messageboard? :highly_amused:
hopsalotThat whole exchange would have been more amusing if it hadn’t been so pathetic.
hopsalot@hopsalot, most info in your post is well known and considered when I wrote my post. Good news about engine ir stealth but I dont understand the Jamming part. I thought F35 used its fixad x band AESA radar for jamming and Nothing else.
That is all that has been announced, but the people in the know have been implying (and for that matter acting like) there is more to it than that.
hopsalotJust business. Most of the Gripen engine is American, & some other parts, so they’d get some money from it.
Exactly… the Super Hornet is of course the most American jet, but the Gripen is easily in second place.
What else would you expect the US Government to propose?
hopsalotEven if F35 is likely to have much better SA it still has fewer and worse missiles, no better IR signature (?), and lacks an internal jammer, again, this only applies if it gets up in the air at all…
:stupid:
“What’s more, a potential future upgrade foresees the F-35 increasing its air-to-air missile loadout from its current four AIM-120 AMRAAMs to six of those weapons.”
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
““Cuda is a Lockheed Martin multi-role Hit-to-Kill (HTK) missile concept. Lockheed Martin has discussed the missile concept with the United States Air Force. The Cuda concept significantly increases the internal carriage capacity for 5th generation fighters (provides 2X to 3X capacity).
http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/
“MBDA has revealed a slightly modified Meteor that would allow four of the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles to be stored inside the Lockheed Martin F-35.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35-347416/
“The classified “sawtooth” features that ring the nozzle help consolidate the exhaust into a so-called “spike” signature, while other secret techniques have been employed to combat and minimize the engine heat signature.
“We had to deal with that, and we dealt with that,” O’Bryan said, declining to offer details.
The F-35 meets or exceeds the services’ infrared signature specifications. Many of the standard fighter engine features such as a big afterburner spray bar assembly and related piping are missing from the F-35. The F135 power plant, built by Pratt & Whitney, is truly a “stealth engine,” he said.”
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
“Participating in the Northern Edge exercise for the second time, the AN/APG-81 radar demonstrated robust electronic protection, electronic attack, passive, maritime and experimental modes, and data-linked air and surface tracks to improve legacy fighter situational awareness.”
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=cfdfb2a2-9bdd-42f3-bf8f-bb7ed0a0fd04
“O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps “is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B” with no additional pods or internal systems.
Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: “Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?” Then he said, “There’s a capability here.”
O’Bryan went on to say that the electronic warfare capability on the F-35A “is as good as, or better than, [that of the] fourth generation airplanes specifically built for that purpose.” The F-35’s “sensitivity” and processing power—a great deal of it automated—coupled with the sensor fusion of internal and offboard systems, give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness as well as the ability to detect, locate, and target specific systems that need to be disrupted.“
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
Next time try doing some research first. :rolleyes:
hopsalotYou haven’t answered my question. So I ask again: What data about that “high end 2020+ threat” have they fed the simulation with?
So you still haven’t read the source I provided you…
Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia’s criticisms mainly centre around F35’s aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J-20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence’s assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.
hopsalotWe are talking about acceleration in general, and in subsonic acceleration the F35 barely keeps up with the F16, despite the skewed tactical mnwr wt addition. In transonic acceleration the difference is pretty extreme. Are you now moving the discussion to only be about BFM speeds? (Where all my statements also have been correct btw)
Why on earth would you jump into a discussion if you can’t understand what it is about?
I think we can all agree that the F-35 was not designed with an emphasis on prowess in BFM exercises, nor was it designed as a high-fast interceptor. That said, it is a 9G capable aircraft with the ability to go to 50 degrees AoA (compared to the Rafale or Eurofighter at 29 or 25 degrees).
It will have a thrust to weight ratio in excess of 1:1 in an air to air configuration with 50% or less fuel (a fuel load that corresponds to roughly 100% fuel load for a Rafale or Eurofighter) and by all accounts has excellent handling characteristics and strong acceleration at speeds where WVR occurs.
Who exactly made the claim you are arguing against?
I don’t think there is anyone out there that claims an F-15 or F-16 perform like an F-22 in general, nothing does.
Additionally, one can not simply dismiss acceleration below transonic as unimportant. That is there most BFM take place.
The data is incomplete, but subsonic is certainly of interest.
This current round of ridiculousness started with a discussion of BFM, where subsonic acceleration is applicable.
Get it yet? Seriously man…
I have provided you with 4 sources to support my arguments about acceleration, you have made one vague reference to the Bowman chart (which isn’t even relevant). Tbh its quite cleat who actually supports his arguments.
What do you want, a link? http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
I referenced that to put an end to your baseless speculation about what constituted “maneuver weight” for an F-35A.
Because the last discussion had originated in your pretty unique interpretation of English words. I think you know it and that’s why you moved the discussion away from acceleration to me not giving enough sources (in this case 300% more than you have provided). Every statement I have made has been supported by solid sources and official data.
Talk about garbage in garbage out… first you fail to grasp what the discussion is about, then you start making assumptions based on your misunderstanding of what the discussion is about… :stupid:
hopsalotAccording to the website mentioned above:
1. Ordered Rafales: 180（Rafale B x 63, Rafale C x 69, Rafale M x 48）.
2. Delivered Rafales (2013): 126（Rafale B x 42, Rafale C x 45, Rafale M x 39）.
3. In-serviced Rafales (2013): 121（Rafale B x 42, Rafale C x 44, Rafale M x 35）.
4. Delivering plan in the next 3 years: 26（Rafale B x 18, Rafale C x 1, Rafale M x 7）.
* 2014: Rafale B x 8, Rafale C x 1, Rafale M x 2.
* 2015: Rafale B x 7, Rafale C x 0, Rafale M x 4.
* 2016: Rafale B x 3, Rafale C x 0, Rafale M x 1.5. Delivered Rafales (2016): 152（Rafale B x 6, Rafale C x 46, Rafale M x 46）.
6. In-serviced Rafale (2016): No more than 147（Rafale B x 60, Rafale C x 45, Rafale M x 42）, and 33（Rafale B x 22, Rafale C x 3, Rafale M x 8）of them shall equip RBE-2 AESA radars.
Only 33 AESAs even in 2016?
At that pace they will be lucky if the radar isn’t obsolete before half the fleet has it.
hopsalotA big win for the FA-50.
It looks increasingly like the Gripen is in danger of being pushed out of its target markets…
hopsalotHopsy… I have provided you with sources. Here is another for the transsonic stuff http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123991-F-35-News-amp-Multimedia-thread&p=2066473#post2066473
Points for actually finding a source this time, but that is predictably enough not particularly relevant since we are talking about BFM speeds, and that is as usual an air-show configured F-16 showing transonic-supersonic acceleration…(an impressive performance btw)
Btw, my excuse for not posting even more sources is that I only have posted from my cell the past days. What’s you’r excuse for never using sources?
LOL
I have provided numerous sources, though again, I suppose you get points for actually admitting that you haven’t been supporting your arguments.
hopsalotThat is a bit steep!
You basically dismiss the professionalism and capability of what is considered one of the best airforces in the world…
These simulations are not some crappy software on a laptop with a Logitech flightstick attached to it.
Airforces make their decisions amd base their purchases on it.
Indeed, and he wanted us to try to hash it out here on the messageboard so that the usual suspects could throw out one goofball theory after another…
Lets face it, nobody here is going to be able to replicate the effort made by the RAAF. If they concluded the F-35 is up to the challenge based on their expertise and far greater data then no messageboard wannabe’s opinion matters much.
hopsalotDon’t be ridiculous. What data about that “high end 2020+ threat” have they fed the simulation with? What do they know aboiut performance and capabilities of J-20, T-50 or other perspective designs?
The answer is: they used data that fit LockMart agenda. The simulation and its results are utterly worthless.
These are studies conducted by the Royal Australian Air Force, not Lockheed Martin, and they have every reason to do the best possible study with access to a tremendous amount of data and expertise that you don’t.
…and as usual your assertions have no source other than your own speculation/wishful thinking.
hopsalotThis is a serious question for the future. Because most comparisons I have ever seen are F-35 against F-16. But F-16 is not the threat the F-35 will be facing in the future, J-20, T-50, J-21 are..
Of course it is important. That is why Australia (and others) are doing the most sophisticated possible simulations to study the issue.
According to the source I have provided they have concluded the F-35 is capable of meeting a “very high end” 2020+ threat.
If you have a source I would like to see it.
Thus I am challenging your original post in which you are stating that [let me quote you] “especially considering the steadily dwindling importance of close turning fights.” In my opinion, with every new VLO design emerging on the market, the close turning fights are gaining more and more importance as teh classic radar-guided BVR fight will have become obsolete.
Really this is just wild speculation, though at least you acknowledge it as such.
Sign In
