You know what a coarse grid is?

I guess they like spending extra money on array size just to fool you into thinking it’s bigger that it actually is.

Btw, dummy T&Rs would degrade the performace of the array.

Here are other APG-81 shots showing the array, including ones from the production line.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235958[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235959[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235960[/ATTACH]

Sure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzDke56vMiU 0:40 Northrop-Grumman state 1000 T/R for the AN/APG-81!
http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAPG-81_a001381001.aspx 1000T/R!

Or you can count them for yourself.

You had access to a production Captor E?

Nope, just going off that photo.

Do you have a more up to date photo?

SpudmanWP, 14:42: The key takeaway is that when comparing the ability to ID a possible threat, a high-ranking member of the Australian Air Force testified under oath that in an apples-to-apples comparison, the F-35 has 3 times the capability than the F-22.

SpudmanWP, 15:47: Essentially yes but keep in mind I never said “3x better”.

Can you reconcile these comments? Or explain what the parameters were, or, if you can’t, explain why more parameters invariably mean proportionally more effectiveness?

It’s called “English”…. “3x the Capability” <> “3x Better”.

If I have to explain why having the ability to process more parameters in order to make a Positive ID makes you more effective, then you are either trolling hard or a lost cause.

We need to get clear here. We are talking about a system to identify the detected threat, right?

Essentially yes but keep in mind I never said “3x better”.

Here are several reasons why modern systems need more ways (id “parameters) to ID a threat:

1. They have to overcome jamming and obfuscation techniques that the threat will use to hide its identity.
2. Being multi-role aircraft form the start means that your target set is much larger than single/limited role fighters.
3. The F-35 is designed to do more without supporting asserts like dedicated ISR, EW, etc.

One thing to keep in mind is that it’s not just the radar, but also EOTS, EODAS, ESM, CNI, etc and the level of integration (data fusion) between the systems that plays a key part. Then there is the processing power in the back-end needed to handle it all.

Where exactly is the “three times” capability claim sourced from?

Maybe you should try to actually read the quote from Air Vice Marshal Osley.

And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it {the F-35} has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen.

There you go. The F-35 is capable of processing three times the number of parameters as the F-22 when making an ID.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/threat-data-biggest-worry-for-f-35as-ioc-but-it-will-be-on-time/

Interesting article on the threat database for the F-35. It gives some idea why the aircraft has such a massive amount of software code. The advancements of newer fighters to classify targets is, in my opinion, revolutionary. Fighters like the F-15 had a single sensor to locate, track, target a bogey, then had to rely on IFF to determine whether bogey was hostile.

The newer generation can classify based on emissions, fan blades, “other” ways that among the most classified aspects of the new generation of fighters. That is crucial seconds off the OODA loop. It punches clean holes in the arguments made by unnamed aviation “experts” the BVR engagements are not truly applicable due to IFF difficulties, “fog of war” etc.

Couple of minor points fbw; nowhere in that article does it make mention of the “classify based on emissions, fan blades, “other” ways” you are claiming…
Which them makes it somewhat difficult to make the absolute statement that: “It punches clean holes etc.”

In addition I’m aware that F-15’s have NCTI and have used it in combat, and am relatively comfortable that other platforms are perfectly capable today of identifying contacts through those methods you mention.

Which does rather make your little post look quite thin and substance less given that the link doesn’t support your claims and even if it did they are really nothing special for those who have a real interest in military aviation rather than just the F35!

I think that the following quote from Air Vice Marshal Osley in front of the Australian Parlament in 2012 puts the size of the mission data & it’s need in the F-35 into perspective.

Air Vice Marshal Osley:

And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range.