aurcovWhy is it not possible for F-22 pilots to revert back to the Partial G-suite used by most other pilots in their fighter jets?
Oh, don’t tell me.. cause the F-22 life-support system does not work with other G-suites?:rolleyes:
Sometimes i wonder what the hell LM was thinking about when designing the F-22..
There is no universal G suite.
aurcovThe engine is not “hobbled”. Performance calculations include a normal margin for deterioration between overhauls, which LM hopes can be whittled away.
As Spud mentioned, the engine penalties used by LM were something different than the 5 % penalty in combat radius, that LM self-imposed. As already mentioned here, the often mentioned “584 miles” sub-KPP figure, is in reality 613 Nmiles, so it is > 600 Nmlies (the KPP), even with + 5% fuel consumption and -2 % thrust.
Aurcov – AESA development has been continuing in a healthy manner outside the JSF program, as witness APG-63, RACR and the Selex range.
Of course, the AESA development is not linked to JSF. But the tile T/R elements that form the arrays of the APG 79, APG 63 (V)3 , the APG 63 (V)82, RACR, despite being Raytheon products, are in a sense linked to JSF, because the R&D money was provided to both Raytheon and NG (they built the elements in a 50%-50 % JV) specifically for JSF’ APG 81. Also, NG offers some mode of the APG 81 in the SABR AESA plug-in upgrade for F 16.
And the F-15 DEWS may share some technology with the JSF fit, but will have an active mode and different antennas.
Of course, the DEWS/Barracuda commonality is for RWR/ESM side.
aurcovFirst they take the technologies developed for the F-35 and place them into F-15s, F-16s and SH while working on another project with fixed price contracts, serious management etc and they built a cost effective F-35.
But they are already doing it. The EW suite of the Saudi F15 SA (DEWS) is derived from the F 35 one. The AESA radars offered for 4 gen. (F 16 blk. 60, F 18 E/F, F15 SG) owe a lot to the R&D dedicated to the F 22 radar (the AESA T/Rs are made together by Raytheon and NorthropGrumman).
There is also a transfer from the F35 to the F 22. The latest F 22 radars are based on the new “tile” T/Rs instead of older “brick” T/Rs, and new F 35 VLO coatings are applied to F 22 resulting in simpler maintenance.
aurcovIf it has less drag, then it will need less thrust, not more thrust, for same speed.
F-16 has nearly same thrust dry as Gripen on reheat, so if your assumption is true, F-16 can supercruise at ~Mach 2
The drag coefficent is better for F 16. Is clear now?
aurcovHave you compared the size with a Gripen and a F-16?
Drag coeffcient is dimensionless
aurcovYou mean F-16 has higher speed with less thrust than Gripen ?:confused:
No, I mean the F 16 is less dragy than Gripen. And it has a higher speed and more thrust at 13,400 kgf as. 8000 (9800 if you count the NG).
aurcovBecause combat radius can be counted in a number of ways. How many tanks does each plane have, what weapons and how long at station? Gripen can use more tanks when it just goes from point A to point B. But if you go into a war zone you want less tanks and more weapons.
Both F-16 and SH has more drag then the Gripen. So Gripen can reach higher speed with less fuel and as a result cover a larger distance.So
Combat radius: 1300km
Ferry range int: 2500km
Ferry range int+ext: 4075kmseems realistic.
True for the SH, untrue for F 16; it
has a lower drag then the Gripen
aurcovUnfortunately, he is quite right. The images in the video look roughly comparable to an uncooled AmSi plane array with 320×240 pixel count. This is my honest estimate based on quite extensive experience with these systems (:p my note!)). I imagine that at the time of the creation of the DAS it must have been state-of-art technology, but today you can get a similar or a superior result from an $8,500 handheld system.
Your “extensive” experience???? Yeah sure…If you check an older ARES blog post (yes, by BS, who isn’t exactly a F 35 fan, to stay polite) the resolution of DAS is in Gpixels range; if yo are indeed experienced(:p) you shoud know that the commercial systems are in Mpixels …” extensive” experience….
aurcovF-35 avionics heating problem. I had a bad feeling about them putting all those gadgets into a single-engine platform. Now they are diverting more air from the engine for cooling at the expensive of combat radius. 🙁 http://www.dailyairforce.com/707/F35As-combat-radius-drops-to-584nm.html I think maybe the DAS is giving some problems considering how much power it uses :confused:
Old news. Indeed because the airflow for heat removal was more than anticipated the combat radius droped to the mentioned number. However, LM took a safety margin of 5 %. So, actually the combat radius is 613 Nmiles > than the 600 Nmiles (KPP).
aurcovEven if it was mentioned on another topic, it’s too funny:
Maverick is becoming an F-35 test pilot.
It’s true.
Tom Burbage, the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme manager, showed up at a National Aeronautics Association luncheon today and dropped a bombshell of a Hollywood scoop. Sure, there was talk about schedules and budgets, partners and politics, software blocks and carrier hooks. But we’ll get to that later.
The big news from Burbage’s speech involves Top Gun 2, the long-not-quite-awaited-but-certainly-delayed sequel of the 1986 fighter jock classic.
Tom Cruise, of course, confirmed back in December that the sequel is coming, but nobody — not even IMDB (we checked) — knows the full story.
But Burbage does. Lockheed’s Fort Worth, Texas, factory and flight test center will host production crew in the “next month or so” to start filming, Burbage told the NAA luncheon crowd.
Burbage also confirmed that Cruise will not just make a cameo; he will be the star, and he is playing the role of a Lockheed F-35 test pilot!
Potential plot twists fill our heads.
There will be no need to resurrect Goose, as the F-35 is a single-seater. With the Libyan air force in smouldering ruins, there will also be no need to stage another improbable yet inspiring combat scenario. Indeed, as a test pilot, it’s not clear how the movie’s writers can weave Maverick into a combat situation.
Maybe we’ve been covering the industry too long, but our perfect plot for Top Gun 2 has no combat sequences at all. Instead, it goes like this:
Maverick is a test pilot struggling to keep the flight test programme on schedule, even though his better judgment is sometimes compromised by a lifelong, paralyzing fear of vertical landings. Maverick almost throws in the towel after his favourite knee board/test card holder is destroyed in an unfortunate lift fan malfunction. Meanwhile, the programme’s enemies, led by the snearing Bill “Iceman” Sweetman and Karlo “Slider” Kopp, take advantage of Maverick’s absence to nearly bury the programme in a wave of seemingly overwhelming blog attacks. That’s when Maverick’s love interest — a Texas congresswoman strategically placed on the AirLand subcommittee — intervenes. She gives Maverick her father’s last knee board (er, her father was also a test pilot … just go with it) and literally pushes him back into the cockpit. Maverick straps on the knee board, takes the Block 3 software build out for a spin, hits every test point and — for the finale — lands vertically right on top of Aviation Week’s building in downtown Washington DC. And that’s when Kenny Loggins starts singing.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/03/top-gun-2-will-rock-the-f-35-t.html#comments
:diablo::D:diablo::p:D
aurcovNothing wrong with APA as a source, -as long you are aware he wants F-22 instead of F-35. Actually i think what he really want is J-20
Nope, their wet dream is a mixture of Su 35 and T50 😀
aurcovJust a few fundamentals from analysis of Russian fighter radar systems in support of the countervailing arguments to those claiming the JSF reigns supreme when it comes to radar sensors:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html#mozTocId533477
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
On the point of EO-DAS data being displayed on the big screen, genuinely curious to know if this is a real mode of the system and how such a mode would work?
For instance, from where would the steering cues originate?
How would such a mode work at night?
What proportion of the screen would be required to display the EO-DAS imagery?
How does such a ‘head-down’ presentation aid in pilot SA?
Doesn’t such a display require the pilot to assimilate and fuse these data with other SA data?
If so, is this not contrary to the F-35 JSF overall SA doctrine?
Is/has this mode been tested?
On the latter, have not seen testing/assessment of such a mode in the ITT ITP Test Schedule nor any reports of such testing being done in the CATBIRD part of the test program. Where can one find such testing listed in the test schedule?
..
APA?????? Comme on…
aurcovNow obviously the DASS and SPECTRA are chalking close to a decade in operational service by now correct ? While EODAS and associated systems…well, who knows when it’s going to actually become operational .So would you say the the europeans have an advantage in this kind of system because of their operational experience , because they have long tested and deployed the said systems, because they have a better understanding of how such systems works on a tactical fighter airframe etc etc, while the EODAS which is suposed to do pretty much the same thing , with maybe couple of more “gizmos” added in, is not even close to being declared usable and ready given the integration problems they still have ( per the latest F-35 problems and issues report ) ? 😉
DASS and Spectra are top systems; however do you believe that ALR 94 (F 22) or Falcon Edge (F 16 blk. 60 ) are inferior?
aurcovLOL! I have two words for you: weight and volume. Ok, make that three: cost.
Remember, you’d have to use SIX to get all-round coverage! Each sensor weighs more than 50kg, even if you’d be able to use a single processing unit for all of them.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/IRST-FA18-Product_Card.pdf
if they had done it with less money, it’s OK
EOTS is not unique in having that capability either though. Most modern IRSTs have an additional FLIR capability, it’s just that this is merely a secondary mode of operation, like NCTR is in a radar (or is any set that doesn’t have NCTR not a radar?). PIRATE has a MWIR channel for better image quality, AAS-42 (that’s the one on which the ABL sensors are based) can display the LWIR image if desired and OSF has a separate TV sensor.
Nothing special anymore.
yes all FLIRs can do this; ir’s about the aperture 1024x 1024 (EOTS) it’s just better; BTW a LW sensor as the one of AAS 42 does not offer you the same image quality as a MW sensor. And yes the Pirate and OSF have a MW sensor, bur again it’s about the size of the aperture.
For all six sensors put together, yes. However, DDM-NG and PIMAWS generate higher resolutions than the physical size of their detector arrays too, the image is built up virtually from sub-sections as the mirror completes each scan cycle. This is a very similar principle to the one on which the Mica IR and IRIS-T seekers (are we seeing a pattern yet ;)) operate, as compared to AIM-9X and Python V.
but you agree that a starring sensor (AIM 9X, Python, ASRAAM, DAS) is better than a scaning sensor. ,
aurcovI’m not sure if the relationship is linear, but a Scud or Shahab-3 class missile (the kind of weapon ABL was supposed to counter and which is the only type the F-35 is likely to encounter in service) is even smaller than 1/6 of Falcon 9. Keep in mind that ABL was designed to *shoot* such targets at 600km, so detection would have been even further out. There is no comparison – and here’s the clincher: the IRST sensors on ABL were based on the F-14D sensor.
If the F14D-based IRST of the ABL would be better than the DAS, it would have be selected, since both are LM products.
What would zoom give you in the IRST role if not range? Don’t go confusing FLIR and IRST again, a true IRST can scan, detect and track targets without ever showing the pilot any raw imagery – sensor data will be presented in an abstracted symbology format as with a radar. Identification by imaging is a useful capability but is NOT a defining feature of an IRST (the Su-27 system does not have an imaging capability) and has *nothing* to do with its range.
The image below shows the PIRATE display format in Typhoon: no imagery.
That’s whyan IRST would never be a primary sensor; you still need a confirmation from a second sensor that the contact is hostile. Enter here the EOTS with its powerfull zoom (on thew expense of the FOV).
I suggest you read the PDF I linked again and also look at the PIMAWS document I posted earlier, the capabilities and principle of operation are pretty much identical to DDM-NG. Also, you are operating on the misguided assumption that EODAS is anything other than MAWS which can track non-missile targets and the imagery of which is made available to the pilot (rather than never leaving the singal processor). Any imaging MAWS could in theory be given a situational awareness mode (hence the talk of back-fitting EODAS-capabilities into the AAR-56 on the F-22), it’s just that most legacy systems are either not imaging or too low in resolution to be useful. Looking at the DDM-NG sensor image I linked, it is clear that it holds its own against EODAS pretty nicely in the resolution department, so all it would take is to provide the imagery to the pilot. That is an area where the F-35 is currently experiencing severe issues as well, so don’t be too quick to claim superiority :diablo:
Hey, I don’t discount the Rafale. IMO that’s the best Eurocanard (more preciselly the more complete). BTW, in Avleek article the resolution of DAS was revealed; we are in the Gigapixels…
Sign In
