dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2153396
    SpudmanWP
    Participant
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I really did like the McD design, i would like to know why it lost out to the other 2.

    IIRC the gas powered lift fan was to risky and their opting for “lift engines” (ala Yak-141) was a non-starter for the Program.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2154029
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Shouldn’t it be software only to fix that ?

    Yes, but the requirement specifically states that it has to be 3F compatible.

    AASM would also require the full integration workup from separation tests, software tests, etc.

    The reason why they are looking at advanced versions of Paveway is that the Paveway is already part of Block 3F.

    Whatever is chosen, it has to be a drop-in fix, ie absolutely no change to the F-35 or it’s schedule.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2154038
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    By the way did Sagem bid with its AASM for the F35 OTS agile munition?

    AASM is not Block 3F compatible.

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2154420
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    please excuse my ignorance — what is this?

    English Electric Lightning.. It’s 1 of 2 Lightnings that gave the F-35 it’s name.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning

    in reply to: Stealth/VLO performance against SARH SAM/AAM #2154961
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    It might has to illuminate the target for the last 20 sec of the engagement, possibly less. The illuminating radar would only get a return if a “bad” face of the VLO asset is exposed to it due to maneuvering we talk about. Bear in mind that this is not any radar but a brute force 10.000 element large aperture x-band PESA which detects a 0,01 m² RCS target at ~75km.

    Since the illuminator needs it’s own returns to know that it’s on target, the illuminator is susceptible to jamming, especially of the deceptive type, which would degrade it’s performance even further.

    A VLO fighter does not have to even get within 75km of the illuminator to take it out as it can use JASSM, JSOW, JSM, SDB, JSOW-ER, or any number of smart, standoff weapons backed up with Stand-In, Stand-Off, and MALD-J jamming assets. Keep in mind that if a threat has the potential to be serious enough, it will be pounded to dust long before it can be an actual threat (most of the time). While armchair Generals like us sometimes get caught up in the “coolness” factor of a plane/weapon/etc, we tend to forget the big-picture & don’t consider tactics.

    I didn’t. I just proposed a concept.

    Got it :eagerness:

    in reply to: Stealth/VLO performance against SARH SAM/AAM #2155166
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Yes we assume that they don’t have sufficient accuracy, only provide vector and the position in space for the illumination radar. Trip-wire type Bi-/Multi-static systems like the Russian Barrier system is another way to get coarse location of VLO assets for the bi-static engagement method proposed here.

    Neither the Low-band or Bistatic (trip-wire) systems can give you enough accuracy to pass along to the illuminator.

    Too small, right. We are talking about X-band engagement radar and X-band SARH seeker here.

    Since it’s an illuminator, it has to be constantly on target. It knows this by getting feedback from its own signals. A VLO target will not return enough of the illuminator’s own signal in order to let the illuminator know it’s on target. You have already conceded this point as this is why you proposed SARH.

    Who said the Russians are not already using this concept?

    Who said they are?

    As said in the first post, the strange notion of Russians to stick to SARH even in their lastest SAM systems has brought be to this idea in the first place. There are no hardware changes necessary for this operation mode. Even the S-500 seems to have SARH elements and the active seeker for naval S-400 is most likely for over horizon engagement of sea skimmers.

    The US Navy also uses SARH in a majority of their SAMs as it gives them more authority over which missile is going to which target.

    in reply to: Stealth/VLO performance against SARH SAM/AAM #2155625
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    1. This is the basic starting point for the concept, a higher tier sensor must know a coarse location (e.g Container OTH) and a high power low-band system must establish a more accurate track and identification (e.g Resonaz, Nebo-M).

    Low-band radars do not have enough accuracy to get a decent fix on a fighter, let alone a VLO fighter. This is why they are delegated to “trip-wire” types of systems that have a secondary high-band illumination radar.

    2. A heavy heavy SAM like S-400 comes down from more than 25km altitude flying at a energy optimized lofted trajectory, I would even expect that down to the altitude of the VLO asset it will just consume the potential energy for its positioning maneuver while maintaining ist coasting velocity (incl. adding aerodynamic losses).

    Missiles are too to have an effective low-band SARH seeker. There is a reason why the main low-band radar transceivers have their elements spread far apart.

    3. That goes for a conventional fighter as well and is quite difficult against a sensor fused SAGG guidance.

    I meant on top of all of the other issues (radar band poorly optimized to track target, missile seeker poorly optimized for tracking in a low-band, etc)

    4. The missile has the absolute kinematic superiority to position itself to any position necessary relative to a F-35, the JSF will never win that game (engagement wont last long enough).

    The F-35 will be tracking the missile as it gains altitude and can change course long before the missile gets into a position where it can lock onto the VLO F-35 give #1-3 above.

    The strongest indication that this will not work is that despite SARH being well know to the Russians, despite SARH being much cheaper than active homing, and despite them knowing that they will have to fight VLO objects (F-117, B-2, F-22, F-25, Cms, etc) that they have chosen not to do this.

    in reply to: Stealth/VLO performance against SARH SAM/AAM #2155733
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Have anyone heard about this bad boy

    Yes and it’s internal to the F-35

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]251515[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Stealth/VLO performance against SARH SAM/AAM #2155850
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    You are making some bad assumptions there:

    1. The radar knows where the F-35 is in order to keep it in the illumination beam
    2. The SARH missile has the spare energy to virtually pass the F-35, do a U-Turn, and then catch up while not being in the reflection cone.
    3. You ignored jamming & decoys from the F-35
    4. You ignored the F-35 maneuvering away from the SARH’s killbox before the missile can get a sniff of the returns.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2155866
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The F-35C could carry it on other pylons, no need to spend millions on each plane to change the wingtip.

    The issue needs to be fixed, period.

    Given that, there are relatively few F-35C that have been built so replacing their outer wing (past the fold) is relatively inexpensive.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2156207
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Engine fix was permanent.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2156411
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Ah, I thought you were talking about getting details from the released budget docs.

    NDIA is pretty good about releasing PDFs from it’s presentation but we’ll have to wait a few months to get them… Unless you are going, in which case I am SOOOO jelly :eagerness:

    Here are the NDIA conferences (the latest released conference is from Oct2016): http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/

    Some other ones are:

    http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/events.htm
    http://www.ndia.org/events?PageNumber=1&IsPastEventLoading=true&Division=&Chapter=&Affiliate=&Topic=&Cate=&FromDate=&ToDate=&Zipcode=&Keyword=

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2156474
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Budgets are usually released in the first week of February but are often delayed when a new admin comes in and especially when the party in charge changes.

    For example, Obama’s 1st budget (FY2010) did not come out till the end of February and the docs were not available till May.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2156504
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The “other fighters” would need to get a Block Upgrade to include UAI first, but yes, it would benefit them also.

    Here are a couple of old UAI planning docs to see what the features are and their planned development. Ignore the date timelines as a lot of it was tied to the F-35, as it was delayed.. so was UIA.

    However, all F-15Es have UAI as they are the developmental fighter for the UAI spec with F-16 Block

    https://i.imgur.com/9sYr6Hp.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/1asY2po.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/Nq3sUiK.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 4,849 total)