aurcovI’m surprised that anyone accepts the unqualified claim that JSF will be more agile, across the board, than the many different aircraft that it’s replacing. It would seem pretty clear that (like F-22) Lightning II’s agility will be largely dependent on thrust vectoring (wing loading and thrust to weight aren’t that different to the F-16, for example). It will probably be more manoeuvrable, subsonic, lightly loaded, than a heavy F-16C – but perhaps not as agile (in terms of nose pointing) as an F/A-18 and without some of the AV-8B’s unique capabilities.
The original requirements of JSF (that both LM and Boeing fullfiled) were that it will be as good or better than the planes it will replace in similar configuration; i doubt it meant that a “lightly loaded” JSF had to perform better than a F 16 with 3 bags and 2 tons of bombs…
If only this will be achieved , the JSF will accelerate as good as an F 16 (i.e. better than a Su 30, an F 15C, or a Rafale, only betered by an EF and a Raptor) will have a similar roll rate (best in the world) and will have the high AoA agility of a Hornet (wich is more than OK for me).
As for combat radius–here there will be no contest.
aurcovThe F-16 used as chase plane is carrying underwing fuel tanks…
If the F-35 didnt outrun an F-16 with external tanks, something would be very wrong.
More interesting would be to know how a clean F-16 compares.
You seems to forget that the guy said he used ~ 30-40% of the thrust. If in these conditions, he still obliged the chase F 16 to use afterburner, it’s excellent. Anyway, I doubt that the chase plane has more than the center tank; in fact in attached picture (from this article you can see a clean F 16)
You are right, it will be a good airplane. But it does not really kick a$$, to be honest. It reminds me of a female having four master degrees three doctorates and impressive carreer.. but being ugly and boring at the same time.. No excitement, simply doesn’t send chills down my spine like Rafale of MKI/MKM do..
It depends: if you are a CEO and you need a top executive, you will chose that female; OTOH if you need someone to bang, you will pass her and go for a top model. The 35 may not be a looker, but I can name a few fighters that were more ugly, but kicked asses…
Though elements of the sensor package are flying, it’s not flying as a system. Thus to claim it as the ‘best ever’ before we’ve seen if it works is debateable. Neither right, nor wrong, but open to debate
When the F 22 wasn’t in service, many said that not being oprerational you can’t compare tham with EF, Su xx, Rafale, etc; now with over 100 of them operational, others say yes, but future “tranches” of EF, Raf, Su 35, pAK FA, you name it, will be at least as good as the 22, though those are still on drawing boards, or in testbed stage…
APG-77 seems to be a great success story, and APG-80 seems to have been a remarkable achievement, but I’m less sure that APG-79 is something to trumpet about just yet. And advanced AESAs will be much more common in ten years time than they are now.
see this: http://www.raytheon.com/feature/f-18squadron07/ (already posted here) There are now 84 APG 79 operational.
The USA does some things brilliantly well, but even the best US aircraft sometimes have flaws, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. The extravagant claims for the F-22 blinded many of us to the lack of a helmet display, the lack of a HOBS weapon, and the lack of a datalink that would allow the aircraft to share its sensor picture with ‘disadvantaged platforms’.
US bosses decided to go over the JHMCS and to go for the more advanced helmet –the one that will be on 35; as for the datalink, it’s true that initially the 22s had only IFDL to talk between them and a receiver-only Link 16; however, “Dozer” said in an article in AvLeek (about “Northern Edge” exercise in Alaska) that the full, two-way Link 16 (MIDS) are already purchased for the Raptors and probably are now installed. The huge data gathering capability of the Raptor was the main reason: they decided that the raptors shoud share the data with legacy platforms.
aurcovRAYTHEON CELEBRATES ROLLOUT OF FIRST AESA-EQUIPPED F/A-18 SQUADRON
Frm Raytheon http://www.raytheon.com/feature/f-18squadron07/ site
Raytheon and Boeing’s Hornet Industry Team (HIT) supported the Navy’s rollout of the first Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)-equipped F/A-18 Super Hornet squadron at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach, Va., last week. Reporters from leading trade and local news outlets attended a dinner with Navy leadership, as well as briefings from the squadron’s commander, the Super Hornet program manager and the Carrier Air Wing Eight commander.
The new radar’s battle-changing capabilities include multitarget tracking and increased situational awareness. In air-to-air engagements, the radar allows targets to be engaged at very long ranges and offers reduced aircrew workload via its resource manager. The system also offers high-resolution ground mapping at long standoff ranges for air-to-surface tracking, with an interleaved mode capability and at least a three- to five-fold increase in system reliability. These increased capabilities give the Super Hornet Block II greater reliability, survivability and lethality than ever before.
The HIT representatives, along with the commander and members of VFA-213, Naval Air Systems Command and the program office, fielded questions from reporters about AESA on the F/A-18.
“The remarkable thing about AESA is its incredible reliability and maintainability. A lot of programs often promise improvements in something and then fall short, but AESA delivers,” said Cmdr. Paul Gronemeyer, VFA- 213 commander. “Maintainers love it. AESA is just like driving a car; you pull in, gas and go. Also, the fact that we’ve exchanged no new parts in more than two months is a luxury and allows guys to focus on other areas. It also helps us with scheduling — it just works.”
The briefing also saw the announcement of the U.S. Navy’s approval to move the APG-79 AESA radar into full-rate production, marking the end of the low-rate initial production of 84 radars. Raytheon is ramping up the production line in anticipation of delivering 437 systems to the Navy.
The performance and capabilities of the Super Hornets are exceeding the Navy’s expectations, said Capt. Don Gaddis, the Navy’s Super Hornet program manager. “It’s a completely different airplane from what we op-evaled in 1999. This is not just a variant of the Hornet.”
The AESA-equipped Super Hornet Block IIs are being delivered to two squadrons at Naval Air Station Oceana: the Black Lions of VFA-213 and the Gladiators of VFA-106. The former is the first Navy squadron to fly all AESA-equipped F/A-18F Super Hornets. In addition, AESA-equipped Block II Super Hornets are being introduced to squadrons at Naval Air Station Lemoore in California.
aurcovThe E2D radar is AESA
aurcovsome random flight of a civillian aircraft during peace time does not give indication of airdefence capability. It has issue of readiness in respond. there alot more recent failures. so ur concluding that they cannot detect Cessna so it means they cannot detect anything? there record of intelligence service is far superior to Western ones in every sphere.
If we all agree that the Russians have the best air defence capability, that they have the best record of intellingence service, would you agree to return to the topic?
Is it really necessary to bring into discussion the unbelievable achievements of Russian aerospace/electronics/porn industry in every single thread, such as “How does the latest Super Hornet compare to the newest Rafale”?
aurcovI wonder how a Cessna does in their simulations?
:rolleyes:
:diablo:
aurcovStealth is no problem for Russia:diablo:
If I’d be the USAF Chief of Staff i’ll be thrilled if RuAF top generals would think that way…But I’m sure that they are too proffesional to be so brainless nationalist…
Anyway, if I declare publicly that Russians fighters are the best, that a Su 30 would beat the crap of an F 22, would you agree to get back to the topic?
Thanks…
aurcovStealth is no problem for Russia:diablo:
If I’d be the USAF Chief of Staff i’ll be thrilled if RuAF would think that way…But I’m sure that they are too proffesional to be so brainless nationalist…
Anyway, if I declare publicly that Russians fighters are the best, that a Su 30 would beat the crap of an F 22, would you agree to get back to the topic?
Thanks…
aurcovwhy they have to go close enough. they can simulate stealthy targets like small UAVs or missiles.
Oh, they simulate…You convinced me now:p :p :p :p :p :p
I can simulate an old F 4G smashing ten SA 400 batteries simultaneously and shooting 10 Su 30 Mk while egressing the airspace above Moscow.
Stealth targets are no longer threat to Russia
😀 😀 😀 :D:p :p :p :p :p :diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo:
aurcovUr clearly wrong on this one. In MIG-35 OLS video represenation they were showing F-22. it means they have stealth target in mind when quoting those figures. Su-30MK IRST can fully exploit BVR missiles and thats more than a two decade old technology. MIG-35 is based on IIR.
Could you enlighten us–where the f**ck had the Russian the opportunuty to get close enough to tape a Raptor in IR??? When the did a MiG 35 get close to 15 km to an F 22 ??????
aurcovYeah, sure :p that’s a future (typical russian thing) upgrade marketed as ready to sell :diablo: Right now the OLS of the prototype MiG 35 can do this :
Viktor Sumerin, NII PP deputy general designer: “During the OLS tests we got MiG-29 detection ranges up to 45 km from the tail and 15 km from the front. Ranging device effective range for the aerial targets is 15 km, for the ground targets – more then 20 km.
But don’t let me ruin your day; if you want to believe that Russians are able taday to manufacture optoelectronics comaparable with what US did in 1990 (when f 14D), be my guest :diablo: 😀 :diablo: 😀 :diablo: …
PS: I think you realize that the figures for the AAS 42 are for head-on (“cold” tagets)…
aurcovYe wot?!?!
Its energy bleed rates must be horrendous – especially in the transonic regime.
Any kinda competent pilot in an F-16 would have it for breakfast, never mind being in a Rafale.
Yeah, sure…in most of the training dogfight between F 16 (USAF/ANG) and USN, the Hornets pilots prevail, thanks to better inst. turn rate and higher AoA wich allows them the first shot. And the superHorror is even better concerning maneuvrability.
What a brilliant solution.
Who said thatit’s a brilliant solution? The Boeing guy specified that is a less expensive solution, not the best one.
If Boeing were clever, they would have provided space for a fuselage mounted system when they had to redesign the Hornet to SH anyway. Relocating a few antennas cant be that difficult.
It kills me when I see aviation fans who “know” better than a company that built some 5000 F 4, some 1500 F 15 and some 1200 F 18…
Hi Scooter. I am confused about this. I read about this last week and didn’t post it because, frankly it didn’t make much sense. I thought ATFLIR could to most of this already.
ATFLIR is one of the new generation of targeting pods (together with Sniper and Litening) that offer an A-A capabilty albeit not so robust as an IRST.
Well, your not the only one that is confused! I was told by a reliable source the Tomcats (F-14D) IRST had a range in excess of 120 miles!
That’s a little exageration. Many sites claim 180 km, but for a maritime Tu 22–that a huge IR target. For a fighter-sized target, I recently saw on a Korean site 100 km for the newer version of the AAS 42 mounted on the F 15K. However, that almost 5 times better than the top Russian system put on the miG 35 (OLS):p
My guess is that it will be used mainly in a air-to-ground role.
Nope is strictly A-A. And a SuperH in A-G won’t need it: the ATFLIR can cue targets (in clear weather) at ~ 40 Nmiles…
aurcovWhy not just mount it in a pod under the chin like the F-14D????:confused:
That’s why:
Boeing opted for a podded solution to save money. “Originally, we considered integrating the IRST into the aircraft fuselage, on the upper nose, or on the gunbay doors, but these solutions required significant structural, electrical and cooling system modifications and, in both cases, called for relocating existing antennas,” says Chris D. Wedewer, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F IRST program manager. On the other hand, using a pod provides flexibility because they can be distributed among fleet users as needed.
Also, remember that F 14 had a chin+mounted pod from the f 14 A version.
realistically, a SH stands no chance in a close-in encounter with a Rafale so in BVR unless the French enter a AESA radar of high quality, the APG79 rules the roost + the new meatier amraam.
Disagree. The SuperHorror is a potent dogfighter –have you see some recent demos? It is the supersonic dash, neeeded for a Navy interceptor that is problematic; in fact not even this, rather the acceleration–it takes way too long to reach, let’s say 1.6 M.
USA is ahead, but far less than you imply
🙂 One can always dream…
aurcovNice clip; too bad though that one of my favorite test plane isn’t in it — F 16 MATV…
aurcovTo track a target accurately enough to basically bounce a radar wave off makes accuracy of 610m pathetic not flattering
At that test (Nov. 21 1973) the targets were at 50 Nmiles. Tracking 6 targets (two of them 600 m close) at 50 Nmiles and guiding simultaneously 6 missiles in SARH mode against them, it was quite an achievement. So were the 5 hits. Do you know any other test similar with this one performed in 1973?
Why should I bother with compliments… the yankie fan boys are pouring it on thick enough already… aparantly Phased array was a huge step backwards till the F-22 got AESA… and now nothing else is worth anything anyway…
Next you’ll be posting that the ZASLON was nice on paper but because of the backwardness of the Ruskies it never really worked properly and I will retort with something like the AWG-9 only worked when it was being used to gain control of someones oil deposits.
The MiG 31 was a nice achievement of the Soviet industry. Its speed and Zaslon radar made it a formidable foe.
AESA is a huge step ahead BTW, even compared with PESA, since PESA has one TWT (as any mechanical scan radar).
As for AWG 9 working only to gain control of someone’s oil deposits, I don’t know what conflict you refer to (Gulf War 1991 may be?). However, the AWG 9 was used in anger extensively in Irak-Iran war.
Sign In
