dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,121 through 3,135 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: bye bye stealth? #2354282
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Since LM has developed its own passive bistatic radar solution, I think they not only know a thing or two about its true capabilities, but also how to defeat it and how the F-35 will fare against it.

    http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/mil/radar/sentry.pdf

    in reply to: bye bye stealth? #2354390
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    There are production representative F-35s flying today. I think it’s likely that they will be testing them against any new radar system that comes on the market.

    in reply to: bye bye stealth? #2354417
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I’ll believe it when they can track an F-35 at tactically useful ranges.

    in reply to: UK's 1st F35. #2354596
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    You do know that the UK’s 2nd F-35B has already flown, right?

    http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news_item.html?item_id=763

    in reply to: UK's 1st F35. #2354639
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    It’s also not the heaviest.

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/df483326.jpg

    in reply to: Why the carrier-based AEWA does not enter jet era #2356028
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    if jet based AEW Platform want to be chosen, then an entirely new design has to be invented. With market potential only for 30 up to 50 (only counted USN and French), there will be a very,very expensive program (which under current conditions is near impossible to be financed).

    This was the impetus and reasoning behind the common Support Aircraft program. The plan was to replace AEW, EA, ES, EW, IFR, COD, ASW, ASUW, etc with a common airframe that supported all the various rolls with little customization.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Support_Aircraft

    in reply to: Why the carrier-based AEWA does not enter jet era #2356067
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    IMHO, The Viking is too small for the radar dish and would have to give up to much internal fuel space to put all the radar gear.

    Maybe if they went with a stretched version and the triangular AESA seen on some V-22 AEW designs?

    Given today’s compact computers it’s possible. Given the power requirements of AESA it might need new engines or an APU though.

    in reply to: Why the carrier-based AEWA does not enter jet era #2356145
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Land-based AEW is going jet (where it has plenty of FIR to feed it) while ship-based AEW stays prop due to endurance being more important.

    in reply to: Why the carrier-based AEWA does not enter jet era #2356309
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Assuming a launch distance of 150 miles @ 2000 mph and the target trying to escape at max speed then an E2 @350mph will only get ~26 more miles away and a ERJ140 @ 520mph ~40 miles further.

    In either case case the AAM arrives at the target spot within 7 minutes (or sooner) and kills the AWACS.

    They key is for the fighter pilot to launch the AAM not at max range, but with enough room to include the AWACS’ escape run.

    in reply to: Why the carrier-based AEWA does not enter jet era #2356553
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Nobody is going to respond to this reply?

    I did with

    A turbofan powered plane does not have a better chance than a turboprop of evading an AAM. Sorry to burst you bubble, but they are both sitting ducks if the missile can reach them.

    in reply to: Why the carrier-based AEWA does not enter jet era #2356740
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    A turbofan powered plane does not have a better chance than a turboprop of evading an AAM. Sorry to burst you bubble, but they are both sitting ducks if the missile can reach them.

    in reply to: Why the carrier-based AEWA does not enter jet era #2357000
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The jet’s AO (Area of Operation) is far away from it’s base, therefore transit time is critical. A shipborne AEWA does not have a long transit time so speed is not an issue.

    A Jet AEWA has access to plenty of land-based IFR to tap into in order to feed it’s hungry turbines. A shipborne AEWA has to rely on shipborne IFR so the extended time on stations afforded by a turboprop is a plus.

    An all composite blade would not have an appreciably larger RCS than a turbofan engine.

    in reply to: Raytheon re-invents JDRADM: enter T3 #1792137
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Both Boeing and Raytheon have T3 contracts from DARPA (from 2010). I wonder what they involved?

    in reply to: Raytheon re-invents JDRADM: enter T3 #1792142
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Even thoutgh JDRADM cancelled in FY2013 budget, T3 lives on:

    Title: Triple Target Terminator (T3)

    Description: The Triple Target Terminator (T3) program will develop a high speed, long-range missile that can engage air, cruise
    missile, and air defense targets. T3 would be carried internally on stealth aircraft or externally on fighters, bombers, and UAVs.
    The enabling technologies are: propulsion, data links, and digital guidance and control. T3 would allow any aircraft to rapidly
    switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. T3’s speed, maneuverability, and network-centric capabilities would
    significantly improve U.S. aircraft survivability and increase the number and variety of targets that could be destroyed on each
    sortie. The program is jointly funded with, and will transition to the Air Force.

    FY 2011 Accomplishments:
    – Conducted preliminary design review of T3 concepts.
    – Initiated T3 critical design activities.

    FY 2012 Plans:
    – Conduct hardware-in-the-loop integrated subsystem testing.
    – Conduct propulsion system ground testing.
    – Fabricate and ground test demonstration vehicles.

    FY 2013 Plans:
    – Conduct captive carry test of flight test article.
    – Conduct ground launch of test article.
    – Conduct airborne launch of test articles against three target types.

    in reply to: F-35 News thread. Part Deux #2357264
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    JDRADM was cancelled due to “higher AF priorities”. This only covered the overall JDRADM program. The technology development behind it is still in full swing.

    The T3 program from DARPA (a sub program of JDRADM) is not only alive and well, but plans on having live weapon testing in 2013.

    Title: Triple Target Terminator (T3)

    Description: The Triple Target Terminator (T3) program will develop a high speed, long-range missile that can engage air, cruise
    missile, and air defense targets. T3 would be carried internally on stealth aircraft or externally on fighters, bombers, and UAVs.

    The enabling technologies are: propulsion, data links, and digital guidance and control. T3 would allow any aircraft to rapidly
    switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. T3’s speed, maneuverability, and network-centric capabilities would
    significantly improve U.S. aircraft survivability and increase the number and variety of targets that could be destroyed on each
    sortie. The program is jointly funded with, and will transition to the Air Force.

    FY 2011 Accomplishments:
    – Conducted preliminary design review of T3 concepts.
    – Initiated T3 critical design activities.

    FY 2012 Plans:
    – Conduct hardware-in-the-loop integrated subsystem testing.
    – Conduct propulsion system ground testing.
    – Fabricate and ground test demonstration vehicles.

    FY 2013 Plans:
    – Conduct captive carry test of flight test article.
    – Conduct ground launch of test article.
    – Conduct airborne launch of test articles against three target types.

    Note that T3 does not mention multimode seekers (ie EW and IIR) and that the artist renderings on the DARPA site show a ramjet based missile.

    On the AMRAAM front, a new motor (muti-pulse, composite case, new nozzle, etc.) is on the way and we should be hearing of in by the end of the year.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,121 through 3,135 (of 4,849 total)