Akj,
The LRIP aircraft are more expensive because you have to pay for all the costs related to running the plant, R&D, etc while only selling a dozen aircraft a year.

As the orders climb, the cost will go down.

This is not a secret and applies to ANYTHING that is produced.

Here is a quick comparison of a video card released 10 years ago to one released last year. Both are Nvidia cards.

The new one is over 4000 x faster (100 million ops vs 420,000 million ops)

YIKES 🙂

Of little help. Just advertisement claims without data. Something about lower weight is nowhere mentioned! 😉
You can look at the graphic-card in your PC to get an idea about the demand in electricity, cooling and the related space. The ASEA-technolgy has still to mature to fullfil all promises related to that, but I agree that PESA is just something interim.

Oh ye of little knowledge and a complete lack of an ability to follow a link.

Here is the Youtube version of the SABR video. You should watch the whole thing to get a good idea as to how it fits in the same space, power, and cooling requirements of the F-16’s current MSA radar. But, pay attention to 3:48 in the video where is says “Combining LRUs improves performance, reliability, fault isolation, size and weight”.

Can it get any clearer than that?

A few seconds later it talks about the “Antenna Power Converter” which uses the AC power that used to run the MSA motors, and redirects it to the AESA array, thereby keeping the system as a whole within the power requirements of the previous MSA.

btw, Your video card analogy falls flat because today’s top of the line video cards are hundreds of times better than what came out 10 years ago. The SABR is not “hundreds” of times better than what it is replacing. Nice try. 😉

Do you care to provide sources and compareable data rather than making generalised claims?

Raytheon RACR radar
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/racr/

Northrop Grumman SABR radar
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/sabr/

There are docs and videos on both sites that explicitly state that the system, as a whole, weighs less than the MSA system it is replacing and fits within the power and cooling parameters if the existing F-16.

The NG Video even shows, step by step, how this is a FRU swap and can be done in the field.

F-22 ~29 minutes
EF Typhoon ~35 minutes
Gripen NG ~41 minutes
🙂

You have to add more detail to that statement.

You need:
1. Time/Distance/Speed before SC
2. Time/Distance/Speed during SC
3. Time/Distance/Speed after SC

Any fighter that can SC might just spend 90-100% of it’s time in SC. He will run out of gas real fast though 🙂

Also, how long can a F-22 spend in SC at mach 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, etc.

What’s makes these aircraft greater than 4+ Gen (Gripen, EF, Raf, SH, etc)?

Did they have ANY VLO aspects?

much more then others lets mention internal weapons bay ,twin canted vertical stabilisators instead of 1,curved intakes….

Internal weapons, canted tails, and curved inlets do not make VLO. These are currently on the F-18, but nobody would claim it is VLO. Reduced RCS yes, VLO no. It needs shaping and RAM to be truely VLO.

Any integrated avionics?
ok much bigger platform and more room for radar and other things ,that would be integrated in some time if program continued…

My point was that if they would have been built and now flying, they would not have any better avionics than are currently flying in Russian aircraft.

Supercruise?
,longer and faster then all you other fighters.

What do you base this on? Neither aircraft achieved supercruise during their testing.

America tested a forward swept wing fighter and found that the benefits did not outweigh the problems.
yes problems that could be solved with nanotechnology but some time needed to pass to get there and actively change wing steinght.

What?? Let’s get back to earth now. What tech was available years ago that could have fixed the issues in order for the Su-47 to be produced today.

How was the 1.44 any better than either of the eurocards?
-dumbest quetion of the week,:rolleyes:yes indeed,i could whipe them off face of earth…:diablo:

How, if after only two flights, can you claim that the Mig 1.44 could “wipe them out”? Do you even know the weapons load of the Mig? Please, provide some links to you data.

Try providing links instead of wild claims.

hey ipod,

who says its a 5th generation fighter in the first place?

Well, you did. You surmised that they could use these as their 5th Gen and later transition to 6th Gen (whatever that might be). At most, they would be 4.5 Gen.

Those two never made it beyond technology demonstrators so what advanced radars, FLIR, or integrated avionics are you talking about?
1.44 has only made two flights due to lack of funds.

Can you tell me, exactly what kind of integrated avionics YF-23 has had at the time of its testing? It was merely a functioning platform, just like those two, so what’s your problem?

Hmm, if America said that, then it must be true.

The requirements for the avionics were known at the time of the YF-23’s flights and would have been developed and installed by the time of it’s operation.

Not only have we developed and deployed AESA radars on the F-22, but we have AESA radars on F-15s, F-16s and F-35s.

At the time of the 1.44’s flight, it was slated to have a PESA radar. To this date, no production Russian aircraft has an operational AESA radar.

@SpudmanWP: What was ther American conclution regarding forward swept wings? Pros and cons?

From this site

Forward Swept Wings offer the same high speed drag reduction as Aft Swept Wings. Sweep, whether forward or aft, reduces the local Mach Number of the flow over the wing. This means that a transonic aircraft can cruise faster before encountering significant wave drag. An FSW has the added benefit in stall compared to an ASW. For an ASW, the spanwise flow is in the outboard direction, and the flow separates at the tips first, leading to tip stall. The FSW has spanwise flow that is in the inboard direction so that the wing stalls at the root first. So the FSW has better airflow at the tips for high angles of attack which improves maximum lift while also retaining aileron control in stall.

So what’s the catch? Aeroelastic structural divergence for one thing. When an ASW flexes under lift loads, the tips tend to twist in a direction such that the angle of attack decreases. For an FSW, the tips tend to flex in the direction of increased angle of attack. The increased angle of attack causes even greater lift and hence even greater twisting. At some critical speed, the wing tip twist will overcome the structural strength of the wing and the tips will “diverge”. The structure can be designed so that the divergence speed is higher than the aircraft will ever see, but there’s quite a substantial weight penalty involved. However, composite materials have made FSWs feasible with minimal weight penalty due their stiffness and light weight The fibers in the composite layup of the tips can be oriented to specifically resist the twisting load and therefore yield a high divergence speed.

On top of that, like was mentioned by BWIrwy4, add the complication of the inherent instablility of FSW designs like the X-29, and the overall design problem is not easy.

Also, I would think that in a VLO airframe, the FSW wing’s forward edge would reflect EW energy back toward the fuselage to be scattered again in many different directions. This would severely compromise it’s forward RCS which is where you want the best RCS numbers.