hopsalotyou’d think Pietrucha has been reading our discussions on missile limitation
:stupid:
Please tell me you aren’t honestly suggesting that he learned something about missiles here.
hopsalotNavy’s UCLASS Could Be Air to Air Fighter
http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-uclass-air-air-fighter
One way to offset a subsonic platform of course is larger missiles. It wouldn’t turn a flying wing into an interceptor, but it would help.
hopsalotKey Points
The F-35 programme is considering integration of a next-generation EW capability that could allow pilots to control enemy weapon systems
The evolution in EW capability is likened to the technological advancement from gravity bombs to precision munitionsThe Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme is considering integration of a new pod-mounted electronic warfare (EW) capability being developed independently, the deputy programme executive officer told IHS Jane’s during the during the Navy League Sea-Air-Space conference on 14 April.
“Fundamentally, it’s no different than the application of electronic warfare,” Rear Admiral Randy Mahr said of the new kit, which he previously referred to as an “offensive cyber” capability. “You pick a target and you apply a signal to that target.”
Rear Adm Mahr declined to name the company developing the capability, noting that such industry internal research and development (IRAD) initiatives are treated as proprietary technology.
He said the company is targeting the F-35 programme for sale of the capability because “they’re looking at us and the evolution of the platform. We have the processing capability, and we have the knowledge of the battle space.”
The admiral described the capability as a more nuanced application of EW than that of legacy systems. “Until now, we’ve been trying to disrupt radar,” he explained. “The next step is to try to gain control of the weapon system.”
Rear Adm Mahr likened the advancement of EW in the new system to the difference between gravity bombs and precision munitions. “So far in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, electronic warfare has been the massive application of a lot of energy; we’ve been able to direct that energy,” he said. “Now we’re looking to make that energy smaller and to do something with it. This is to get in to their control systems.”
http://www.janes.com/article/50659/navy-league-2015-f-35-studies-next-generation-ew-capability
hopsalotNo doubt that the DAS combined with the HMD is a very good system, but other next generation planes are likely to get similar ones.
Given that the Rafale still isn’t operational with helmet mounted sight it could be a while…
If eventually the technology becomes standard (and I agree it probably will) then the days of dog fighting will be at an end.
hopsalotThe LOAL is a good capability to extend the effective range of the missile or to get off boresight shots with reliable targetting informations, which is not the case with a DAS like system.
Source?
You seem to have a lot of strong opinions that you don’t have much hard evidence to support. Two things to consider, multiple F-35s will likely be able to merge the data collected by their DAS systems, which should provide greater fidelity and a ranging capability in some cases, and more importantly for this discussion… the missile still has a seeker.
The whole point of putting a seeker on the missile is so that it doesn’t have to be guided with perfect precision all the way to its target by a sensor on the launch aircraft. For targeting purposes it is sufficient to know which direction the target is and relay that to the missile. Once the missile has turned sufficiently to bring the target into its field of view (a few moments at most) then its seeker will take over.
Take a look at these videos and note how quickly the AIM-9x turns in the first couple seconds of its flight:
hopsalotI even wonder, could the AARGM-ER be used for other purposes, like anti-air capability and strike capability? For a2a it could be used against large aircraft. I don’t know if its MMW radar could be used for that. If yes, the F-35 could attack enemy tankers, AWACS or transports far inside the enemy airspace without taking too much risk. Those large aircraft have huge RCS for sure.
For a2g, they could be used as a cheap hypersonic missile alternative. They could be used against all sorts of time critical targets.
For air to ground this is already the case:
The system can quickly engage traditional and advanced enemy air defence targets as well as non-radar time-sensitive strike targets.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agm-88e-advanced-anti-radiation-guided-missile-aargm/
It is a pretty cool missile, but it is certainly not hypersonic. It is quoted as having a speed “over Mach 2.” Pretty quick when you consider that it has a 150lb (66kg) warhead, but a long way from hypersonic.
hopsalotI find it kind of amusing how fanboys think they know more than actual officers with access to the relevant information.
Pilot after pilot has said the F-35 has strong acceleration, and yet around here some remain convinced that they all must be lying… :very_drunk:
Given that Pratt and Whitney have already announced that they can offer up 10% greater thrust as soon as 2018 it will be interesting to see whether it is embraced.
The block one improvement will offer between a 7% and 10% improvement in thrust, as well as between 5% and 7% better mission fuel burn, and could be available around 2018. “So far, no one has decided they need the capability but we are making sure we are providing the options,” says Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Bennett Croswell.
…
Block two would therefore take elements of the advanced engine—in particular a new compressor and turbine— and feed it into the F135 for as much as a 15% thrust increase and a 20% reduction in fuel burn. “The compressor has more stages. It fits and is compatible with the current engine,” says Croswell, who adds the upgrade could be available in the 2022 timeframe if development of this, and the associated block one improvement, is approved soon.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/pratt-unveils-sixth-generation-fighter-engine-f135-upgrade-options
The performance is available, someone just needs to decide they want it.
hopsalotThanks. That is one of the best examples of outright lies used to promote the F35. That and cherrypincking in 4th gen is just superb. I wonder how… say the Flankers fit in? Or the F15 (a fighter of similar weight class as the F35).
About 4½ gen… :stupid: Yes, i used that emoticon as this might be among the most blatant lies in the F35 promotion campaign I have read. And it is not directed at you.
So a senior Australian officer was lying under oath? Is that really the best you can come up with? You realize the actual MPs can see the real data, right? They would know if he was lying…
The fact is that acceleration KPP was with a heavy load. Who compares a F-35 loaded with 2,000lb bombs and a huge fuel load to a 4th generation fighter carrying only a few air to air missiles and less than half of the F-35’s fuel load and calls that fair?
:stupid:
hopsalotAccording to the Australian hearings full weapons (2x2000lb bombs and 2 amraams), fuel state was not mentioned though AVM Owsley did say that other aircraft would be carrying tanks for comparable range so possibly full/full configuration.
“Air Vice Marshal Osley: If we compare those two, the legacy aeroplane with fuel tanks and weapons on it, if we take a fourth generation fighter, typically an F16 or an F18, in that configuration it would take substantially longer than 63.9 seconds. If you took a 4½ generation aircraft it actually could not accelerate to supersonic in any time over that 0.8 to 1.2 range with a combat configuration of external tanks and weapons. The point I made originally was that we need to talk apples and apples between legacy fighters and the F35 on manoeuvrability and performance capabilities.
…
The figures that you are talking about, the specifications down the bottom with the sustained turn and the transonic acceleration, are derived values in order to meet the overall mission performance specification. We have always been focused on the ability of the aeroplane to meet the overall mission performance specification—the ability to do its air-to-air mission and to do its air-to-ground mission. If you take a particular parameter, such as the transonic acceleration, the difference between—in fact, the F35 can reach mach 1.16 in 55 seconds, so it is 0.04 mach short of that target, and in a slight descent it will exceed the limit. The point to make is that we do not necessarily get too focused on those individual derived parameters. We are focused on the overall ability of the platform, trading off everything—all the different capabilities—it has there: the situational awareness, the performance of the radar, the performance of the electronic warfare capability, the performance of stealth, the balance of range mission payload and the weapons.”
So it is pretty clear to me at least that he is comparing aircraft carrying fairly heavy air to ground loads. It is also clear to me that he isn’t real worried about the acceleration numbers.
Do we really have to rehash this same stupidity every month or so? Why not create a “fanboys confused about the F-35” thread?
hopsalotFrom Pak Fa – T 50 thread.
Why would the F-35 A & C need the be compared with the aircraft it is replacing instead of the fith & sixth generation aircraft it may have to someday try to survive against in combat?
The F-35 A & C sustained turn performance will never be as good as it would have been without the design compromises required for the F-35 B, B design requirements that a future opponent will not be compromised with.Freddy.
It is a question of sufficiency.
The US could build a mach 3 fighter, but is that necessary? Within the technological and fiscal constraints the program had to operate in the F-35 placed its greatest emphasis on stealth and avionics. The kinematic requirements were speced out safely within the spectrum of 4th generation fighters, but was never intended to set the bar.
hopsalotDon’t forget the anti-radiation half of the equation, the AGM-88 continues to receive major upgrades.
This upgrade will see its motor replaced, which was one of the few parts that weren’t replaced/upgraded in the AGM-88E program a few years ago.
Two new initiatives cover standoff weapons launched outside the range of surface-to-air threats. The new-start Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER) gets $267 million in development funding across the 2016-20 FYDP and will mate the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E AARGM with a new motor. Two motor options were studied: dual-pulse for a 20-50% range improvement, or solid integrated rocket-ramjet for doubled range. Budget documents indicate that the Navy has chosen the rocket.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs-cut-back-us-navy-invests-standoff-weapons
Background on AGM-88E
The AGM-88E AARGM is a follow-on to the US Navy’s AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). It was the only tactical extended-range, supersonic, multi-role strike weapon in the US and Italian inventory when operational in 2012.
In September 2012, ATK received a $71m contract from the US Navy for the full-rate production of the AGM-88E AARGM.
The US Navy received the 100th AARGM from ATK in September 2013. It awarded a $102.4m contract to ATK for the second full-rate production of AGM-88 AARGM for the US Navy and Italian Air Force in October 2013. The contractual scope also includes the supply of Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) for the US Navy, Italian and Royal Australian Air Forces.
ATK received a $96.2m contract from the US Navy for the third full-rate production of the AARGM in August 2014.
…
The AARGM incorporates a new guidance section and modified control section combined with Rocket Motor and Warhead Section, wings and fins of HARM. The missile uses a multi-mode seeker to counter enemy shut-down capability.
…
The AGM-88E is equipped with an advanced multi-sensor system comprising a Millimetre Wave (MMW) terminal seeker, advanced Anti-Radiation Homing (ARH) receiver and Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS). The system can quickly engage traditional and advanced enemy air defence targets as well as non-radar time-sensitive strike targets.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agm-88e-advanced-anti-radiation-guided-missile-aargm/
hopsalotWith 60 export Rafale to deliver as quickly as possible, the production rate will obviously increase.
The production can easily double within 2-3 years which means that the 26+24+36=86 Rafale can all be delivered by 2019Here is a ramp up example :
2015 : 11
2016 : 14
2017 : 18
2018 : 21
2019 : 22
total = 86
Getting to 14 in 2016 seems a bit ambitious doesn’t it?
seriously…
There are long-lead items that would need to be ordered and we are already well into 2015. The production ramp probably couldn’t start until 2017 at the earliest.
hopsalotNonresponsive, and therefore ignored.
Cue whine from Hops “Oh you’re walking away from the discussion”.
Facts are trickier for some than others. :highly_amused:
You would so much like to spin this into something it isn’t. You can’t simply accept that events might have unfolded in a manner not in accordance with your wishes.
hopsalotSeriously, more proof that the more one approaches JSF fanbois with facts, the stupider they get.
Here are three propositions, that you may dispute with facts as you wish.
1 – The speed at which you determine that a program has proceeded depends on what start and end points you select.
Which equivalent points would you pick that wouldn’t see the Rafale end up behind the F-35?
2 – There is a difference between delays due to outside factors, beyond the project’s control, and delays due to non-performance.
Not if the only question is how quickly or slowly a program progressed.
3 – Comparisons that don’t reflect 1 and 2 are meaningless.
Of course not, they just don’t leave you enough room to try to weasel out of the facts.
Lots of aircraft have suffered delays for lots of reasons. You want to be able to decide which reasons count and which don’t.
This isn’t a discussion of why or how the Rafale took as long as it did, just a very simple observation that it took longer than the F-35.
hopsalotHops – Nobody is arguing that PCW funding cuts slowed down or stopped time. Because that would be stupid and only some people around here are stupid.
So you agree the Rafale program moved more slowly than the F-35 then I take it? :eagerness:
Was that really so hard?
Now, are you arguing that top-down budget decisions can’t slow down a defense project? Because if so, maybe you could explain your theory of how that can’t happen, or why it is exactly the same as some hypothetical child, a hypothetical puddle and hypothetical shoelaces.
I haven’t made any argument at all about why the Rafale program moved more slowly than the F-35 program. I merely stated the fact that the Rafale program did move more slowly than the F-35 program.
Have you got that yet, or do you want to squirm some more? :dev2:
Sign In
