TomcatViPmodifications will include upgrades to mission systems, refueling boom control laws, decluttering the boom visual systems and mission planning systems.
Installation of the IFF Mode 5 will make the aircraft compatible with the civil regulations involving ADS-B.
Other upgrades relate to changes being made to computers, avionics, and the structural and aerodynamics of the basic green airframe being built by Airbus for airliner and military customers.
The aerodynamic modifications relate primarily to changes to the slats and flaps on the wing. Caramazana said the wing changes will bring small but worthwhile improvements in fuel efficiency.
So basically, they start the design phase of the MRT.
TomcatViPIf you optimize aircraft for radar stealth, you sacrifice visual stealth, IR stealth and stealth on the ground, so not only you won’t be flying unnoticed but you run at risk of getting destroyed on the ground. Not a good tradeoff, IMO, especially since aircraft spend majority of the time on the ground, and it is on the ground when they are at their most vulnerable, making stealth comparably irrelevant even if the enemy relies exclusively on an X-band radar for detection. That being said, stealth is useful for SEAD/DEAD missions, making it an inherently offensive capability, and only worth it if you have secure air bases.
But historically, air bases were getting attacked all the time. Gulf wars were an exception, but you can’t rely that your opponent will be as incompetent as Iraqis were.
EDIT: That line of thinking was what led to development of Harrier, and thus indirectly the F-35, but they apparently forgot the all-importanti logistics + maintenance issue since STOVL/VTOL aircraft are lot more complex to maintain that STOL ones.
EDIT 2: An example of what I’m talking about, engine change = 3 hours for Gripen, 8 hours for Harrier.
http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=295
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/engine_change.htm
The harrier engine, although tremendously brightly engineered and improved is a 1960 concept. It is centrally mounted and need to be lifted out of the aircraft. The moving nozzles need to be disconnected before and reconnected after adding time to the process.
On the contrary, on a modern STOVL, the engine is more quickly removed through a modern design. On the 35B, only the shaft driving the fan in front need to be disconnected before going through a normal procedure (accessory with higher maintenance consideration like the bevels for the rotating nozzles can be removed independently). Components integration architecture is carefully planned to minimize cross interaction to access a particular function. Notably by reducing the number of major components.
Have a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oZew4dSOLU#t=75
So a modern STOVL in your scenario fits perfectly: it does not need runway, it is stealth and integrate modern survibabley artifacts to remains a credible threats in a seriously degraded environement (IADS, jamming, enmy dominance of the nation airspace).
Frankly, it we had the budgetary constraints as drawn in a public debate (lower infrastructure cost, remote operations from populated area, lower supporting manpower cost), it seemingly fits the bill of many central Eu nation.
Note: cldn’t find the exact F135PW600 swap time
TomcatViPDoesn’t it looks like being the cause of dyn heating (underside of the levcon, tunnel + BL exhaust grid location) ?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229064[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPRegarding the Canadian report, I found that :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229063[/ATTACH]
But perhaps something was lost in translation for me…
TomcatViP[…]
For the F-35 I would say that implementing a cancellation function would be a waste of money since it would be far easier to get a more robust function by using background jammers to target opposing radars with simple noise to raise the thresholds of the radars which would make the probably small echo from an F-35 even harder to detect. A stand-off jammer would also probably have the advantage to be able to target radars in a larger part of the EM spectrum whereas the F-35 only have (for what is publically known) electronic attack capability from the radar which can be assumed to be in the X-band, or part of the X-band.
Exactly. raising the threshold.Flooding the signals. Forcing your enmy to fight in a radio envi. where its own electronics have not been optimized. And using your lower RCS to keep a head ahead in the race. It’s a wining tactics… at least if you have the most powerful jammer and don’t care about the poor inhabitants bellow…
But this is only ONE single part of the article cited above.
What is more impressive is the matured ability to interfere with on-board electronic by disrupting or directly hacking the computers via your own radar. This is another step ahead. Refined, classy and… Human friendly*. And the fact that they are speaking openly about that tells us a lot about the level of maturity they seems to have achieved.
We are not anymore talking about 70’s concept of EW with orbiting 66 around. This is cyber warfare… Live, targeted and in the air.
You’d better board-in with your keyboard 😉
*I don’t know but nobody still have employed the words “Brains” and “Cancer” at an age where this is a day to day concerns by ppl when they choose their phone. I don’t know, but what’s the point to lower the daily communication emissions if the flying training range right 500km away from your home will flow your brain cells with the a level of emission that will make shy a magnetic raisonance chamber. Especially in confined airspace or large population centers.
TomcatViPRendered images as for some news material ?!!! Wtf is going on down there?!
TomcatViPComparing aircraft perfs within a fixed range does not means nothing. The Su27 was not designed to dogfight with an F15 at 500km from its base but at very long range. Same goes for an M2K that is not a long range escort fighter.
Comparison have to take the different design goal (and marketing claims). For example, how will compare a Su27 at 2000km from its base vs a M2K CAPing at 500km from its base? Or an F15 at 1000km from a MiG29A at 300km or an F18 at 500km from an F16 at 800km ?
Context is what import the most.
TomcatViPSince they all get munitions from the same sources, the bigger question is why they are not used by the various aforementioned aircraft. Scalp and Storm Shadow are similar, yet incompatible. Typhoon cannot use MICA, although its been tested on Gripen. None of the Eurocanards use Brimstone even though it has obvious value well into the future. AMX, Jaguar, and Tornado – international designs – suffer the same. It’s almost like NATO members are growing further apart as they cooperate.
+1
TomcatViPPressure ratio is 28:1 for the F135 in the doc linked…
TomcatViPTwo U.S. Navy MH60S helps to rescue 282 apparent migrants in Mediterranean
Two MH-60S Seahawk search and rescue helicopters launched from the Bataan to investigate the report and confirmed one of the vessels was sinking. The helicopters lowered rescue swimmers to the vessels and began extricating people from the water.
The Elrod (an Italian Navy ship that found the sinking ship and call for help in the rescue) sent two of its own smaller watercraft to assist.
The 282 people were brought aboard the Bataan,
Sources:
TomcatViPAnyone have envisaged the possibility that they may have had to go through balancing the pitch only via the elevons since the deflexion of the large frontal canards imparts the flow so badly that the large body weapon might be lifted by the airstream ?
Solution by using a pusher in the pilon might have imparted the trim problem that Hallo was mentioning (action equate reaction x g load with the adverse torque generated by the frwd position of the weapon)
TomcatViPThx TEEJ and Archangelski
Sad news indeed.
TomcatViP[…]
Comparing F-15C PW-220 with F-22. Going from M1.2 to M1.4 alone results in 36% increased drag. Add to that, F-22 is certainly more draggy, has greater wing area to contriubute to drag, has fixed inlets and less T/W. Plus, it has delicate RAM which would have problems at high pressure/temperature. Somehow I don’t believe F-22 can do much better (if any) than F-15 at the deck. Likewise, I would say same for T-50 vs Su-27 too.
No moving part in the inlets… That’s the only thing we can assume for now. 😉
TomcatViPSomething to note on Gripen’s road basing capability… Lane width typically varies from 2,5 to 3,25 meters minimum width in Europe, with US Interstate Highway System standard width being 3,75 meters; same width is standard in most of European countries. Shoulder width in US is 3 meters on outside and 1,2 m on the inside, and in Europe it is 2,5 meters. What this means is that a typical two-lane road in Europe will have a usable width of 10 meters, with width of a driving part being 7,5 meters. Minimum width is 7,5-9 meters. Gripen has wing span of 8,4 meters, or ~8,6 meters with two Sidewinders, which allows it to use roads even narrower than standard.
And IMO that capability is far more important than stealth, speed etc. Best fighter in the world is useless if it can’t take off due to runway being cratered or the fighter itself being a flaming wreck.
Taking-off form an un-located location is good. Flying unnoticed in order to survive is better. Being able to fight for air superiority in all the volume of your airspace is what you have to achieve.
Again it’s a function of the threat and what you are trying to achieve.
TomcatViPThat aircraft is flying. Hit (right eng. burning) but it seem as if its pilot nose dived to get some safety at low alt. Is the shotdown confirmed by the Ukr AF ?
Notice also that not a single flare was fired after weeks of engagement now.
Sign In
