pfcemTested against Western ECM – great. That does about nothing to prove anything about the capabilities of the ALR-94. Like I said, if you could figure this out, chances are, the people making Russian ECM systems have figured this out long before you, and they sure know a lot more about the systems than you do.
You said. “There is no proof the ALR-94 will work against ECM either.”
It has been tested vs the best ECM systems in the world. If it was somehow insufficient or ineffective you can bet that the makers of those ECM systems would be very focal about how their system beat the ALR-94. 😉
Even if the ALR-94 can “lock on” to the jamming, there’s no guarantee that an AMRAAM in that case would be able to do anything.
Guarantee?
And in 2020, the PAK-FA-M2 will be coming around too. Big deal . . .
Point being that you are making a big deal about how great the PAK-FA will be in 2020 while ignorning how much better the F-22 will be in 2020 than it is today.
The PAK-FA won’t have a PESA radar, and I’ve never heard of any OLS-50 IRST. We don’t know anything about its IRST, and its radar will be an AESA Irbis variant.
I just copied & pasted your text. So I guess you are debunking yourself now. 🙂
And while you may be an F-22 fan boy, Sukhoi has bested the Americans before, and even if it takes them a little longer, they usually do it. Pogosyan is stating that the PAK-FA is the answer to the F-22. I am quite sure he is not exaggerating whatsoever – it’s not like he’s making claims that the PAK-FA will obliterate Raptors like baby seals. . .
Russia doesn’t have the budget to best the F-22.
By Russia’s own admission, it is 7-8 years behind the US in avionics developement/capability (you can bet that US avionics developers/manufacturers see the gap somewhat wider) & IIRC Pogosyan has admitted that the PAK-FA stealth is closer to that of the F-35 than the F-22.
My general thought is that the PAK-FA may have similar flight performance (possibly superior in some respects but definately inferior in others) as the F-22 with stealth similar to the F-35 & avioncs similar to the APG-63(V)3 [possibly APG-63(V)4/APG-82] air-to-air but how close air-to-ground depends on how much emphasis is put on air-to-ground.
pfcemThere is no proof the ALR-94 will work against ECM either. Surely if you can figure this out, so can the people designing Sorbtsiya pods, and internal Russian jammers.
The ALR-94 has been thoroughly tested vs the best western ECM systems in service today.
ECM/ECCM is a constant back & forth with advancements on both sides to counter the advancements of the other.
The ALR-94 will be constantly/periodically updated/improved in order to stay ahead. And when it can’t be updated/improved any more or enough, you can be sure it will be replaced by something else you have absolutely no clue about.
***
Which is useless most of the time to stay polite.
Quite the opposite
Air encounters do not last more than a minute most of the time.
Exactly, while 4th generation fighters are cruising at ~Mach 0.9 & have to accellerate through the transonic flight envelope (where their acceleration is the lowest save for the last ~10% to their top speed, the F-22 is already cruising at Mack 1.78. In the time it takes most all 4th generation fighter to even reach true supersonic flight (~Mach 1.2) the F-22 has already fired an AMRAAM & has moved on the the next task/target.
At supersonic speed high-up you have disengaged by that alone.
No, supersonic speed high-up is where the F-22 lives.
***
How long do you think the F-22 Raptor’s monopoly of the skies would last once the PAK FA enters IOC and even worse, its stealth advantage is compromised by the PAK FA’s N050 PESA radar and OLS-50 IRST?
Monopoly of the skies?
At any rate the PAK FA’s N050 PESA radar and OLS-50 IRST won’t threaten the F-22’s dominace of the skies.
I think no later than early, maybe mid 2020s.
The F-22 of 202 will be much improved over the F-22 of today.
pfcemThanks Jason but you did not need to. Not only have I seen this (reported from the Paris Air Show by a number of sources) it has even been referred to in another thread about the F-15SE.
From the description given, the APG-82 appears to be the already developed & ready for production AGP-63(V)4 renamed (it appears Boeing/Raytheon wants to emphasis its superiority over the APG-79 by giving it a larger designation number) or, less likely IMO, some further improved developement of the APG-63(V)4.
pfcemBeesley’s favorite aircraft(s) & why.
pfcemI’d prefer the Silent Eagle over the Lightning II.
Reasons why:
1. Twin engines – Operation at long ranges with fewer A2A refuelings.
2. Two-seater – Two sets of brains, eyes and ears are four times better than one, and it aids in splitting the workload.
3. Higher T2W ratio – It boils down to better synchronization of energy-maneuverability.
4. RCS – It is approximately the same as that of an export model F-35.
5. Maximum growth potential – The Silent Eagle has reached the zenith of the Eagle family of air superiority fighters and fighter bombers.
1. Your reasoning does not compute.
2. Haven’t you heard? Many think no pilot is the best. 😉
3. Your reasoning does not compute.
4. Nope, not even close. More in a repy to Satorian…
5. So you would rather have a previous generation aircraft that has ‘reached its zenith’ & thu can not be improved on than a next generation aircraft with lots more potential for improvement…
***
Boeing claims that the frontal RCS is comparable to that of an export F-35. There are all kinds of pitfalls in that.
No it does not. Journalist are misinterpreting what Boeing has said to mean that. Read Boeing’s actual statements for yourself – no mention of the F-35 whatsoever…
Boeing has since clarified its statment to make it more clear what it means. Which is basically that the F-15SE’s frontal RCS is likley to be limited by what the US DOD will allow to be exported rather than what it believes it is capable of doing.
***
Well, the F-35’s RCS is also just LM’s claim 🙂
Since the F-22 has demonstrated that it meets or exceed’s requirements & claims there is little reason to doubt LM’s F-35 RCS claims.
pfcemDesign itself is a fixed cost and should have to do in this case with research and development
Only in the dreams of designers & in the minds of the ignorant.
Infinite “triangules” turn in a curve, but that is not the thing on stealth, is about to concentrace all your RCS in a place, leaving some “quiet zones”, infinite “triangules” mean infinite returns to a wider area, even the F-117 is a example of the limits that impose the aerodynamics, the “perfect” stealthy shape was the hopeless diamond, it turned more and more poligonal on the 117 not because stealth, but because aerodynamics
Exactly, With the F-117 they started with the ‘perfect stealthy shape’ & modified it to make it flyable. There simply was not enough computing power at the time to do the necessary calculations for curved surfaces so the F-117 relied on flat facets.
***
Yes, that is probably why the ships throughout the whole history of mankind were flat… Because it was so easier and cheaper to build..
Oh wait, they weren’t… 😮
Look at the upper surfaced, not the hull. Like an airframe’s shape is dictated as much or more by aerodynamics, a ship’s hull is by hydrodynamics.
And since you obviously don’t realize/can’t see, much of the hull of a ship is under water…
Don’t take it personally but I don’t think you have slightest clue of what you are talking about now. Who would bother with facetes which affect performance (even if only slightly as you say) and bring in nothing decisive in terms of RCS compared to smooth curves? That makes ZERO sense.. The whole explanation of yours with the flat ships made me laugh a bit, sorry.. 🙂 But it was funny, indeed..
Nevermind, you have at least tried.. 😉
It is very, very simple.
When the F-117 was designed there simply was not enough computing power at the time to do the necessary calculations for curved surfaces so the F-117 relied on flat facets.
And even with today’s computing power it is much less time consuming (thus costly) to develope a stealthy shape using flat surfaces than curved surfaces. Plus if you don’t ‘need’ curved survaces for some required (aerodynamic ot hydrodynamic) performance, flat surface structures are much easier to design & build.
pfcemWell, RAF Fairford and Mildenhall come to mind…..but don’t let the real requirements of a rejected take off at MTOW deter you from believing otherwise.
You must be smoking some seriously bad stuff.
Both RAF Fairford & Mildenhall can & do operate KC-10’s!
Shame you avoided point but I mentioned total contract value.. not just airframe but all the support which was IIRC required as part of the contract…
No I did not avoid the point, which is that the US workshare difference between the NG/EADS proposal & the Boeing proposal is 27%, not 10%. And a significant reason for that is the fact that only ~30% of the 767 airframe is manufactured outside the US while 95+% of the 330 airframe is manufactured outside the US. the % are not small & the resulting $ (~$9.45-10.8 billion) are not small.
You have identified the issue; insistence on airlift capability that made that the prime driver of the KC-30 choice…because the USAF know damn well that getting two airframes is a very long shot and are hedging their bets…yet you failed to understand the consequnces of that.. looking at the KC767AT in that light, the KC-30 offers greater potential ot cover the KC-Y requirements by fleet expansion rather than by new airframe adoption….
Don’t confuse the KC-X Source Selection Team with the USAF.
There is no way in hell that over the next ~4 decades (delivery of final KC-Z planned for 2048) it will take to recapitalize the USAF tanker fleet will be just one neither-nor (neighter a good ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement tanker nor a good ‘large’ KC-10 replacement tanker) airframe.
If fact with the KC-10 replacement now being put ahead of the complete replacement of all KC-135 all but guarantees that it will end up with three airframes. It is highly unlikely that what ends up filling KC-Z (deliveries planned to begin in the mid-2030’s) will be any airframe in service anywhere in the world today – the absolute closest you can come to is something based on the 787 or A350.
Not to mention the fact that the KC-767AT has plenty of airlift capacity, greater than the C-17 for the loads tankers carry and the USAF knows from experience with the KC-10 the problems with relying significantly on tankers for airlift – namely that the tankers tasked with airlift are not available for their primary mission of aerial refueling.
I would also disagree with your view that the 767AT was ‘better’, but the matter is more sematics than real….in addition the AT airframe, contrary to your view, will demand more basic design confirmation as the mix of parts, whilst all individually proven does, by Boening’s own admission, pose interesting challenges. Nobody doubts that it can be done and done well, Boeing’s performance on the KC-767 program for both Italy and Japan does help support the view that the new version will take more time to ‘deliver’ than the KC-30. The point is now further clouded by the proposal of the 777 variant .. talk about exceeding requirements. It seems Boeing has twigged that bigger may be better and it certainly trumps the KC-30.
BS. The ‘matter’ of the KC-767 AT being better for the requirement is very much real. It meets or exceeds all key requiremtns (it has not been justified that the KC-30 does), meets more non-key requirements, is superior in far far more requirements (both key & non-key), fits the existing infrastructure, has lower total life-cycle costs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
I have have been very vocal that the KC-767AT requires more basic design confirmation than the KC-30 & that that is the reason why its SDD costs are higher, but contrary to what the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers want people to think will not take any longer for the very simple fact that the systems development that is required reguardless of what airframe the KC-45 is will take longer than the development of the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe and the development of the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe does not have to be done before that systems development but can (& will/would) be done along with & completed well before.
The KC-X (more specifically some of the systems developement) poses interesting challenges, not the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe. In fact to Boeoing the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe is a “minor modification” and Boeing has plenty of positive experiient with both minor & major airframe modifications.
pfcemVisby class corvette, La Fayette class, Skjold class patrol boats, Houbei class, Formidable class frigates, Zumwalt class destroyer etc., all these were designed years after F-117 and in the case of most of them there was enough computing power available to design whatever hull one wanted to.. Still all these ships feature faceted design, there is not a single curved surface apparent on any of them. Even latest US design , the 60ton Stiletto boat is faceted.
Care to explain why all these ships stick to the ‘obsolete concept’ even if today’s computing power ‘enables smooth curves’? BTW, where do you get this claim with missing computing power being responsible for F-117’s design, at all? :confused:
A) It is much easier & less costly to design & built flat sides.
B) None of them are required to fly, thus simple flat sides does not so negatively affect their performance.
pfcembringing an Airbus plant to US would be a DIRECT result of the KC-30 winning
seems pretty relevant to me
that is a rather massive gain and to completely ignore it is either ignorant or dishonest, take your pick
…a good portion of the US workshare comes from that final assembly plant – aka its included.
no, i think you’re getting confused with how boeing calculates ‘jobs’ related to a program 😀
Not at all. If you want to include non-program related benefits of the NG/EADS bid then you must include non-program related benefits of the Boeing bid. But no you just want to throw out ther the non-program related benefits of the NG/EADS while ignored them for the Boeing bid.
i already told you, not my problem that you fail at reading
In other words you are FOS & just arguing for the sake of arguing.
lol, again confusing two separate issues
let us call the time to develop the airframe ‘x’
let us call the ‘systems development’ time ‘y’
x+y (boeing) > y (eads), capiche?
Wrong.
‘y’ >> ‘x’
‘x’ done well within the time of ‘y’
thus your developent time is still ‘y’
‘x’ requires more resources (thus the higher SDD cost of the Boeing bid) but with said resources would be accoplished well before ‘y’
***
Why? If the aircraft do not exist, but need to be built, how does leasing them speed up construction? How does it speed up design, development, & testing of a new variant?
Because funds to begin the lease could/would be provided by Congress much more quickly (both because the funds would not come from the USAF procurement budget and becasue it was less up-front & year-to-year).
And as the lease program was to work out, a ‘basic’ tanker that only had to meet the most neccessary requirements (the KC-767 varient chosen for the lease was basically the same as the one for Italy) would be built & leased while the developement of the ‘full spec’ tanker (& to be procured in later batches) was ongoing.
Leasing is usually faster in commercial airline service, because there are leasing companies which already own aircraft, or have near-term delivery slots for new-build aircraft. This does not apply to the proposed new version of the 767 for KC-X.
The KC-767 varient selected for the tanker lease was not the same as the much more developed one proposed for the later KC-X (although the post-leas ‘full spec KC-767 to be procured in later batched may very well have ended up much like the KC-767AT). And the lease tankers were in fact to be leased through a third party just as you describe, the only real diffence being that they were tankers rather than passenger liners/cargo freighters.
The acquisition of tankers has been slow because of corruption by Boeing, the slow & insanely complicated procurement system, legal challenges by losing contenders (Boeing most recently, but NG could mount a challenge if it loses the next round), etc. Leasing would not prevent any of these, unless the procurement system is changed.
What corruption by Boeing? It is the US DOD that keep screwing things up, not Boeing.
BTW, it’s all Boeings fault. If they’d played a straight bat in the original tender, they’d have won fair & square. The A310MRTT wasn’t a credible competitor then, & the A330 MRTT was a paper aeroplane. The deal was Boeings, as long as it dealt honestly. It would have all been settled, all over, done & dusted, & Boeing would be sitting pretty now, with a production line humming away building 767 tankers. Justice was done to Boeing, but the USAF has paid the price. Maybe Boeing should have got the contract anyway, but been forced to agree to a price which made them no profit, even indirectly.
Boeing did play “a straight bat” & did win the original tender. People really do need to get a clue & recognize that Druyun worked for the US DOD, not Boeing & even if you want to throw in blaim on Sears, that is still just two people yet people want to place the blaim on Boeing. Not to mention the fact Druyun & Sears did not have any bearing on the selection of the KC-767 (they were in charge of working out the details after the selection had been made by others) and everything they did was undone & renegotiated by other individuals before the program was cancelled. Also note that it was Boeing which brought to light the Druyun & Sears corruption when it learned of it – if it was half as corrupt as so many are making it out to be it would have tried to keep the Druyun & Sears corruption quiet.
EADS knew the A310 MRTT wasn’t a credible competitor but thought it could ‘trump’ Boeing by offering the larger A330 MRTT but the USAF rejected it for not meeting its requirements. The USAF/DOD had been working on tanker recapitalization since 1996. It was like someone going to a car dealership to trade in their compact pick-up indaicating that that it was plenty for their needs but is thinking of ‘moving up’ to a 1/2 ton and the salesperson tried to get them to buy 3/4 ton.
But even with the Druyun & Sears corruption, what really caused the tanker lease to be cancelled (Boeing bringing the Druyun & Sears corruption to light mostly just gave its ‘enemie’ cause to investigate the entire program) was that the DOD rushed the process & skipped required steps in the process under the guise of that they were ‘just leasing’ rather than procuring.
pfcemBeesley has used the 41k figure in his TWR calculations as well. Was he deliberately misleading?
As explained in a previous post in another thread most certainly just thinking of the 41,100 lbs hover thrust the F135-600 demonstrated.
I have hear Beesley use the 48,000 lbs as well…
pfcemThanks for the link.
This is not an USAF presentation though. AFA, in their own words, are “an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization”. Sadly this document cites no sources, so I’d be reluctant to use the 48k figure rather than the current 41k figure from testing or 43k figure typically given for the F135 by PW.
The 48,000 is quite clearly a typo. Either transposing the “3” in 43,000 to an “8” by mistake or (less likely) someone thinking ahead to obvious upgrade potential.
There is not “current” 41,000 lbs from testing. The F135 is rated at 43,000 lbs & is exceeding expectations (note for example the 41,100 lbs demonstrated hover thrust ve the 39,400 lbs rating).
It is only GE/RR who use 41,000 lbs in a deliberate misleading way.
pfcemi love how you try to twist
it isn’t about contributing to the KC-X program, it’s about contributing to the US economy
The EADS/NG proposal could very easily result in a bigger contribution to the US economy than the Boeing proposal
I am not the one spinning. It is only the contribution to the US economy directly related to the KC-X program that is relevant. Otherwise you end up in a never ending spiral of this leading to that all the way down the the “contribution to the US economy” of every single individual that can be tied to the program in any way.
and no matter how you try to squirm you CANNOT ignore the potential impact of a permanent Airbus facility in the US
I am not the one squirming.
yes there is . . .
Who?
not really, that’s actually very short term
Keep on spinning. LOL
just repeating your lies doesn’t make them true
It isn’t a lie, it is a fact.
thanks for making my point
boeing took forever to deliver even when they had a standard airframe to base it off of
add a new airframe to the mix and it will only take longer
adding more work adds more time, it’s a fact of life
Keep on spinning.
duh, KC-30 requires time, the point is it requires LESS time
No it doesn’t.
The systems developement for the KC-45 (whether it be 767 or A330 or what ever) requires more time to develope than the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe.
and schedules are based around estimates of how long they estimate it will take
if you’re implying that they were dilly-dallying on the p-8 just to make it meet some arbitrary schedule, well lol
Based much more on when the customer wants delivery.
The point is that on the P-8, the fact that the airframe was ‘made’ from different components from different 737 variants did not add any time. Other systems represented much greater time/money/risk that would still have been required even if the P-8 used a 100% existing/in production airframe.
***
Both proposals provide a step change in refueling capability and transport..so the USAF is a potentially a winner with either…mind you the reality that the KC767 could not use UK airbases at MTOW is a bit of an issue requiring a reduced MTOW (but still allowing far greater range and off load than the 135…)
Note that with a “full” load of 200,000 lbs of fuel, the KC-767AT is still ~20,000 lbs under its MTOW…
And what UK airbases could the KC-767AT not use “at MTOW” that the KC-30 could (at even a reduced TO weight for an equal fuel offload)?
And don’t give me tha BS that the KC-767AT need a 8,000′ runway. Even the Italian & Japanese KC-767s with less powerful engines need <7,700′. The 8,000′ number is just a requirement for use of NATO bases.
The real issue is whether or not the creation of an all new airframe/ aircraft assembly plant in a new area of the US is desirable or not and regardless of pcfem exhortations the 767 airframe is by no means wholly manufactured in the US…but he is right that whilst the percentages may be small (its actually a 10% difference, not 27% of the declared contract value) the sheer numbers make a vast difference…saying that c. $5billion of US tax payers money is gonig overseas to Europe, percieved as mainly France is a political issue that needs to be addressed. Mind you with the recent lavish spending on Gm and other car makers perhaps the US population has become blase about these sums.
The Boeing KC-767AT is 85% US/15% non-US workshare & the NG/EADS KC-30 is ~58% US/42% non-US workshare. That is a difference of 27%.
As a matter of fact 767 & 777 airframes (just the airframe) are 30% foreign manufactured. But the A330/KC-30 airframe (again, just the airframe) is 95+% foreign (non-US manufactured). But the airframe cost/workshare is only a portion of the total cost/workshare…
To say that one is ‘better’ than the other is completely wrong…as due to thier relative sizes and capabilities they are only comparable in very limited areas….
On the contrary, one (the KC-767AT) is better for the requirements. It meets or exceeds all key requirements (something that can not be truthfully said of the KC-30), requires much less infrastructure developement to be utilized to its full potential (& provides superior capability using the existing infrastructure), has significantly lower total life-cycle costs, et cetera.
What would be more interesting would be to for the USAF to require a true ‘theatre tactical refuller’ and a ‘strategic refueller’, a mix that could have been delivered via a mix of the A310MRTT and KC-45… or a KC-757/777 or 747/8 mix…
The former being much more comparable to the 135 in size and range…and the later giving a serious uplift in capability…but then again perhaps they knew that getting one new tanker was ambitious enough and tried to cover the bases in a single hit.
The USAF does have a requirment for two tankers, the medium KC-135 replacement tanker (KC-X & KC-Z) and the large KC-10 replacement tanker (KC-Y).
Unfortunately (for your ‘theatre tactical refuller’ and a ‘strategic refueller’ idea) there are far to many who insist that even the medium KC-135 replacement tanker (KC-X & KC-Z) have a significant airlift capability (note that for the loads that the KC-X will carry the KC-767AT exceed the airlift capability of the C-17 – quite significant for an airfrace for which airlift is a secondary role).
***
Doesn’t the purely military decision still have to be within the realm of reality with regard to cost? IIRC, Boeing tried to fleece the taxpayers to the tune of 6 billion dollars more than the deal should have cost.
Boeing did no such thing. The lease was not Boeing’s idea & the lease/procurement price was fair.
***
Check out
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-767-lease.htm
Considering all the delays and increased costs we are now looking at, I still think ti was the way to go.
I think one of the reasons the USAF was going the Lease-then-buy is the timing involved.
The procurement-through-lease is a faster method than outright buy method.
Indeed, KC-X is already going to cost more per tanker than the tanker lease was going to.
Aside from the time, there was significant benefit in the lease in that it required no funds from the USAF procurement budget & spead the cost out over a greater time making each year’s costs lower.
pfcemNoone is going to fight at supersonic speeds. Not today, not tomorrow and not in 20 years.
F-22 Raptors do. 🙂
pfcemThen what is?
That it is only Gates’ BS policies which make whether the F-22 has seen combat or not relavent.
And that the reason why it has not seen combat is not because of a lack of ability or opportunity but because Gates has blocked it from doing so.
So when Gates make a BS argument vs the F-22 that “it has not yet seen combat” is disingenuous at best.
What can the F-22 do over Iraq or Afghanistan that anything else couldn’t do?
Completely irrelevant. Fighting terrorists/insurgents in Iraq &/or Afghanistan has not ever been, is not now, nor will it ever be the purpose of the F-22.
pfcemMost likely it hasn’t flown in combat because there is absolutely ZERO need for it to do so. Why on earth would you squander the finite lifetime of the airframe (with none to replace them) drilling holes in the sky looking for camels to bomb? Anybody who would waste F-22 airframe hours doing that ought to be tossed out on their incompetent a$$es.
Of course there is no need to “squander the finite lifetime of the airframe (with none to replace them) drilling holes in the sky looking for camels to bomb” but that is not the point.
Sign In
