Page 61 – Key Publishing

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 901 through 915 (of 4,849 total)

← 1 2 3 … 60 61 62 … 322 323 324 →

Author

Posts
March 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2144065

SpudmanWP
Participant

Nice catch.. looks like the ATK AARGM-ER has a larger diameter motor.

March 12, 2017 at 7:48 pm in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2146966

SpudmanWP
Participant

The TR modules are the same fourth generation design as fitted to the APG-81.

Source?

That may be true of teh 1st batch of F-35s, but TR2 says:

Block 3i is a stepping stone to the Block 3F configuration. It includes the procurement of Tech Refresh 2 (TR2) hardware for the Block 3i configuration. The parts include new radar modules, new Integrated Core Processor (ICP) modules and rack, and new Electronic Warfare (EW) modules.

http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2017/Navy/stamped/U_P40_0592_BSA-1_BA-5_APP-1506N_PB_2017.pdf

Maybe they are talking about other modules like power, filter, signal processors, etc.

March 12, 2017 at 5:31 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2147159

SpudmanWP
Participant

Well, I can imagine that updating A-G/SAR modes or software on the APG-77 might not have been a huge priority.. But the radar itself shall be every bit as good as the APG-81, AFAIK..

Wrong.

Everything from the T&Rs, processors, filters, & components are at least 15 years newer.

March 11, 2017 at 8:44 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2147479

SpudmanWP
Participant

What difference does it make? On AESA radars, SAR is a software related option.

The fact remains that the -81 is newer, build with A2G in mind, and have better T&Rs (1600+).

March 11, 2017 at 8:43 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2147483

SpudmanWP
Participant

Not sure on the bay lengh but I think the AMRAAM-ER would be a better fit for a long range AIM for the F-22 as it’s the same length (12 ft) as the AMRAAM.

While the AMRAAM-ER’s width is larger than the AMRAAM, it’s fins fold so it can store in the same space.

March 11, 2017 at 7:35 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2147511

SpudmanWP
Participant

there is nothing to suggest SAR on F-35 is any better than F-22,
but F-22 can fling an unpowered glide bomb further

The APG-81 is at least a decade newer than the tech in the -77, had A2G SAR from the start (ie not an add-on like the -77) and the F-35 can carry a 2k glide bomb, JSOW, A2G missile, etc. Not only are they developing a winged kit for JDAM, but a powered one too.

https://www.regonline.com/custImages/340000/348932/Documents/JDAMNDIAIntlA-GSymposium2017_ForNDIADropbox.pdf

The F-22 will only ever be able to carry a regular 1k JDAM and an SDB, nothing larger.

March 11, 2017 at 5:32 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2147547

SpudmanWP
Participant

I don’t know if the F-35 can get better GPS target coordinates than the F-22 thanks to its EOTS. Not sure…

I am sure that the SAR modes of the radar are better on the F-35.

March 11, 2017 at 5:31 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2147549

SpudmanWP
Participant

Frankly I’m still not convinced that using short range bombs would make sense in the real world against an advanced adversary. However I take it it is probably possible for the F-35 to get within EOTS range to have more accurate targetting data and to datalink the coordinates to the F-22s armed with SDBs. The F-22s can better saturate the target radars with multiple SDBs per strike.

The F-35 can provide target coordinates for GPS bombs using either EOTS (45+nm) or teh SAR mode of the radar (range unknown). Even the AAO said that they needed longer ranged weapons to reach maximum effectiveness (ie Block 3F+).

March 8, 2017 at 2:47 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2149194

SpudmanWP
Participant

Could the F-35A mount this gun pod, for increased CAS role?

And is there any cost review on this gun pod?

It could use the pod, if it fit.

There are two pods that conform to the OML of the parent variant (F-35B/C). They did not make one for the A.

March 7, 2017 at 6:32 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2149766

SpudmanWP
Participant

what do you think of the possibility of another pod holding 9x ?

Zero

March 7, 2017 at 2:54 am in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2149845

SpudmanWP
Participant

beats me too, its better served with a pod holding 2 aim 9x

Which would be useless for CAS which is the primary purpose of the pod.

March 4, 2017 at 10:20 pm in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2150853

SpudmanWP
Participant

Cooling might become quickly challenging. I won’t be surprised that they have come around many difficulties to achieve reliability.

The MGS is air-cooled, ram air enters through the front and exits out the rear.

March 1, 2017 at 11:13 pm in reply to: Future Light Attack – Textron Scorpion #2152335

SpudmanWP
Participant

The Scorpion might be a good choice considering where the progress of LG Cannon rounds is going. That bay looks to be a good spot to put the 30mm from the Apache or some other med-caliber & low-recoil cannon.

Keep in mind that even a “cheap” APKWS is $30k and a Hellfire $115k.

February 28, 2017 at 10:21 pm in reply to: Future Light Attack – Textron Scorpion #2152868

SpudmanWP
Participant

Low-cost CAS you say?

One word.

ARES.

February 28, 2017 at 1:50 am in reply to: Queen Elizabeth Class: was it right to go for F-35B over the C? #2153288

SpudmanWP
Participant

Elevators are needed for helos too or did you think they worked on them on the deck?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 901 through 915 (of 4,849 total)

← 1 2 3 … 60 61 62 … 322 323 324 →