Along with the Khibiny system, an EW system with enhanced capabilities for providing protection to a larger group of aircraft has been developed for the Su-34. This system probably fills the gap between an on-board defence system and specialized EW aircraft or helicopters. The system, Tarantul, has been in development by the KNIIRTI company since 2007 (RIA Novosti 2017а). According to Igor Nasenkov, the first systems were delivered to the Russian Air Force in late 2015 (Voennoe obozrenie 2015b).

– https://www.foi.se/report-search/pdf?fileName=D%3A%5CReportSearch%5CFiles%5C4c547bec-bdfa-4bdb-a1c9-018097aaf615.pdf

Here’s this one, I’ll dig up the article about the delay.

Talios is an impressive example of newer targeting pods. I am curious if the newer generation of external pods have the same KCAS and G limits as previous external pods. No documentation I can find. Anyone?

Thanks again Tango. Good work over the years, 25k posts!

on an unrelated note, anyone know if it’s still possible to add posters to ignore anymore so you can’t see their posts?

Ah, I knew I recognized this clown. Thincankiller/Picard/ forgot your F-16.net name/ whatever you called yourself before you were banned from every single forum on the internet.

Peddle your “theories” on the blogspot you pay for. The rubes who quote you are almost as clueless as you. By the way, don’t you think that the fact you have to keep changing your name on every forum is a hint that you have no idea what you are talking about?

others can answer you, I’m out. Good luck till your banned here.

Oh boy. I’ll open a separate thread to answer this. The above is convoluted nonsense.
just to point out the easiest….

Only one F-35 variant was to be 9G rated, ever. That was the F-35A. And the FCS in the F-35A allows 9.5G (NzW dependent) without over- G log You can look it up. Anything else you want to make up?

wait- let me get you straight, your saying the FCS protects an F-16 from ever exceeding 9G correct? Wow.

Hi.

I think there are some points which we can disagree on.

1) G onset in not structural overload.

No idea what you are trying to say here. G onset can be gradual or quick depending on maneuver. A hard pitch up is rapid G onset, a bank to 90* turn is rapid G onset. And yes, maneuvers with rapid G onset can lead to over G even with modern DFCS.

2) Not any 9G.0 rated fighter can over-ride the FCS, some well known Rafale competitor could, but the over-ride capability was deleted for structural limits reasons.

Your mistaking override with margins allowable within the FCS control law. As an aircraft approaches the limits, the pilot will receive the auditory warning, and in some cases the stick will push back to attempt to unload. That does not mean that the DFCS will not allow the pilot to exceed the 9G limit, but it will be logged and depending on load, possibly damage the aircraft.

3) The whole thing will depend on structural design: If your ultimate structural load margin is too low, (for the purpose of performance gain for example), then you’re going to have to impose strict FCS limits or will start to pop rivets at 9.5G, bend spars at 10.5G, and because your airframe structural integrity was gone from the rivet popping stage, break whatever part will give way next above that.

Most every 9G aircraft have varying margins usually 50% and higher between design load factor and ultimate load factor. None are going to “pop rivets” exceeding the 9G FCS limiter by a small margin.

To allow for a safe G over-ride you will need a designed ultimate structural limit with enough margin to safely pull more than your standard 9.0G unfortunately, at design stage, not all 9.0G label fighters were built with such margin, even the opposite for the purpose of performance gain through TWR, some other A-C were limited below 9.0G later in their design stage in order to meet weight targets but in any case, it is debatable as to whether pulling 1 or 2 G more would save most situation.

Can you name one aircraft that meets this criteria you speak of?

Since you mention the difference in display style, the first thing to have a look at in order to understand why a pilot does pull high G or not lies in the airframe design, not really in anything else since it will always come into play, even with external loads, when it comes to G limits.

That is a flawed argument. We are talking contemporary 9G rated fighters with modern FCS. With some previous generation of fighters, F-15C for example, lacking a modern DFCS there were specific airspeeds and weights which it could pull 9G (very limited) approaching the g limit would result in “bitching betty” warnings to back off the stick. Yet an F-15C pulled upwards of 12-14G (nearly twice the 7.5 allowable G within most of the flight envelope) in a pull up to avoid ground collision.

With the newer generation of fighters, that 9G envelope is much larger but still limited by weight, eternal loads, asymmetric loads. Specifically in pitch and roll, FCS will limit allowable G in certain regimes. More specifically the FCS limits the actual force on the aircraft (weight, G, acceleration) within the allowable margins.

As for Dassault A-Cs, since the Mirage 2000, they have the (justified) reputation to be built like bricks (to the detriment of absolute TWR-related performances) and Rafale pushed the limits with a beefy 1.85 ultimate structural load design demonstrated by ground testing, which is way above the international standard and certainly above most of its competitors.

Since the purpose of the Rafale demo team is to demonstrate the A-C capabilities, including max instantaneous and sustained turn performances, the pilots routinely pull what the A-C is designed for, 11.0G max.

The Rafale is limited to 5.5g with external fuel or heavy weapons (as with many aircraft), the FCS constantly adjusts the limits within the NzW, as the aircraft gets lighter or loses external stores, the available G increases. The Rafale’s DFCS allowing the pilot to exceed the design load factor of 9+G briefly during an airshow, while an impressive display, does not translate to 11+G loaded for combat. It’s no surprise that the Rafale is ruggedly built; it is a relatively small aircraft that can carry a heavy load of fuel and weapons, it has to be structurally strong as they probably wanted to keep the structural differences between the Rafale C & M to a minimum.

The red air team is screwed.

if it were a “heads up” competition. Red air can be handicapped with intel, data, simulated weapons, sensors, numbers through regeneration. From reports, Red Air exacts a steep learning curve on novice red flag participants as difficulty ramps up. Also, the sides are fluid depending on the mission set and parameters. Draken and Tac Air support are dedicated aggressor contractors filling in for the deactivation of aggressor squadrons (besides 64th), they are pros.

They are AESA versions of the existing ALQ-99 pods on the Growler. They are not self-contained and need an onboard system that will manage them

Not sure what you are trying to say here Spud.
The ALQ-99 jamming pods were modular and components could be swapped out or mixed , the ALQ-249(v)1 shares no commonality with ALQ-99

The three NGJ increments were to each have a different pod
Increment 1- Raytheon ALQ-249 mid band (LRIP 2020, IOC 2022)
Increment 2- (NGJ-LB) Contract award to L3/Northrop/Harris. Low band jammer different pod/architecture than ALQ-249
Increment 3- (NGJ-HB) This one is up in the air (unfunded as of yet), possible expansion of ALQ-249 capabilities, or swap out, or possibly a 3rd unique pod.

NGJ currently isn’t slated for integration on the F-35.