FBWBuddy refuelling works, but is very inefficient in terms of deck use, airframe life, & fuel use. If you need it, you’re operating the carrier at reduced capacity.
Clemenceau & Foch carried the Alize for AEW, not E-2. E-2 was introduced into the MN with Charles de Gaulle.
With the retirement of the KA-6, there are no carrier based tankers in service, anywhere. The Supers are equipped with buddy refueling. As far as your assessment that the carrier operates at a reduced capacity when relying on buddy refueling, I would say that depends on the mission/size of the air wing.
The U.S. Marines have looked into a V-22 aerial refueling system. The USN is ordering V-22 COD aircraft. It is my understanding that the refueling system is somewhat of a bolt-on option. That may provide a way forward (expensive way forward) for interested Navies.
FBWSame old, same old on the MMRCA front:
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12445/Terms_Non_Negotiable_On_MMRCA_Rafale_Deal__Indian_MoD#.VQmYNjgtF88
FBWhttp://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/su-30-fleet-plagued-by-engine-woes-poor-serviceability/article1-1327474.aspx Su-30 engine and serviceability problems.
– This topic has been making rounds on defense sites today. Not the first time this has been reported. Ajai Shulka did a piece on this some time ago.
FBWThat sounds similar to “no way the first cellphone by Apple was going to overcome 15 yrs head start in development and operational use of companies like Nokia, Motorola or Alcatel”.
A moot point by all applicable standards.
I understand the point that you are trying to make but the analogy fails. Commercial technology and patent protection is not the same as military technology. Software engineers and the lot change jobs constantly taking skills and training to competitors in the private sector. That doesn’t happen with military technology. Just because the ideas behind fabricating something like an AESA set are well known, the discipline and process requires time. Case and point would be the long road that China has taken in developing indigenous turbofan engines. They’ve had access to Russian engines for decades. It has not made the learning curve for designing and fabricating them any easier.
I’m not saying that the European AESA sets are demonstrably inferior to the US radars, but if you look at the depth and breadth of AESA radars designed/offered by NG or Raytheon, it would be hard to argue that ANY defense company has experience of those two in designing and building AESA radars.
FBWGood Flightglobal article about BAE’s role in the F-35 program. Article outlines future for BAE moving forward (FCAS), etc.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-where-next-for-bae39s-military-aircraft-409865/
FBWwrong as usual, performance goes down towards the edges
No crap, read what I wrote. Your assessment that the angle affects performance is plain dumb. It only impacts angular view. The edges of the FOV are going to be impacted whether the array is pointed up, down, straight, or sideways.
FBWthe cases where T/R count doesnt directly dictate performance is
1] if it is tilted, meaning more area but less performance in all other direction but the direction it is tilted towards,
for other reasons but highest possible performance, like for instance lower frontal rcs, F-35 among others
2] if space was used up for a swashplate, giving up a number of T/R modules for better FoV and better resolution sideways, EF/Gripen
The angle does not dictate performance. Your only going to get a max 120′ FOV whether the array is pointed upward downward or straight ahead.
The swashplate will increase this at the cost of mechanical complexity requiring more servicing + RCS impact.
FBWNot being able to share engines in the same type of plane is almost the exact defination of logistics….
Essentially flying three different planes off three different ships is absurd, and probably historically unheard of.
The RN carriers in the early 60’s and the USN carriers of the late 60’s carried widely varied air wings-
Examples:
USN Large CVA’s: F-4, A-6, A-7, some F-8, RA-5, E-1
Essex class CVA: F-8, A-4, E-1, EKA-3b.
Essex class CVS: S-2, E-1, EA-1, A-4
This is probably an incomplete list as it is off the top of my head. But simply put, operating varied types is not unheard of, but most likely not cost effective in this day and age.
FBWI’d want NLCA to be catapult compatible, too. India would want ex-USN E-2, C-2, and perhaps S-3, too. It would flesh out real nice if money was no object.
The latest visit from Obama with DTTI agreements: US would cooperate with India and give access to EMAILS for future CATOBAR carrier.
It will be interesting to see what airgroup the INS Vishal ends up with. The AMCA is supposed to have a naval derivative so the interest in the Rafale M is surprising.
FBWJust as I thought, you have nothing. Just your usual go to rant of “those F-35 supporters” followed by you thinking that it is everyone’s job to “prove” things to you. Still no points for discussion, nor anything that may expose you for what you are….. lacking.
Thanks, I’m done with you now. Feel free to keep commenting on my posts if you like but I want discussion with people who actually have an informed opinion.
FBWYour “analysis” is breathtaking fbw. I guess shouting “650” removes all the concerns the article discusses doesn’t it. Of course it does.
You still here? Thought you would be gone after being embarrassed after getting your posts shredded on previous page. So how many posts have you made now with absolutely no points or analysis?
Seriously. since I’ve realized you lack any relavent aviation knowledge, this back and forth has become fun for me.
So, here’s a challenge: go read POGO’s article then come back and make an argument about it. I look forward to embarrassing you again.
FBWAnother source having a go at the F-35:
[b]DOT&E Report: The F-35 Is Not Ready for IOC and Won’t Be Any Time Soon
[/b]
Not to beat a seriously dead horse, but POGO? That’s like getting the news from Russia beyond the Headlines. Really though, there were some serious concerns in the latest DOT&E report, ones that were already discussed on the forum ad nausem. POGO is a day late and a dollars short with this latest “analysis”, the DOT&E report isn’t exactly breaking news.
FBW[snafu352;2208744]I’m impressed with your deep knowledge of the F-22’s capability. Along with your deep knowledge of the Rafale, Typhoon and the Russian offerings. Pray tell how you are so well informed?
Exactly what data are you using to then get the F-35 being three times the F-22 capability?
I’m sure it’s not marketing material or information from within the program seeking to promote the F35 is it…
We were talking software code- that is what Spud was referring to:
GAO a good enough source?
Lines of code “necessary for the JSF’s capability,” GAO said; that includes 9.5 million aboard the aircraft itself. The F-35 needs three times as many lines of software code as the F-22 and six times as many as the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet
or from the very article I posted that you claimed you read:
part, that’s because the F-35 gathers so much more data through its array of sensors than does its fifth generation cousin, the F-22
just stop…
FBWSorry Snafu you used NCTR in your post and obviously don’t know what it entails as you then question that a modern radar like the APG-81 can ID by compressor blades (why because the article does not explicitly state it?). Here is a little primer:
The AN/APG-70 features a ‘mode’ called NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition). Using NCTR the radar analyzes returns from the target and tries to identify the type and model of the target from certain tell-tale signs (returns from turbine and fan blades if the target flies at such aspect that the radar can ‘have a look’ at engines). NCTR utilizes a massive and continuously updated database of radar returns of different aircraft types and models – returns received from the actual target are searched in and compared to this database to have an ID of the target.
It is not unique to the F-35, and if you read my first post, I said modern fighters, nowhere did I say that NCTR functions were exclusive of the F-35.The F-22, F-35 F-18E/F and others have/will have AESA and massively increased processing power over the predecessors like the APG-70 . So yes, the NCTR function of modern radars is one huge improvement in IFF. Want to show off more ignorance?
As far as the F-35 it Helps to READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE about the threat database:
That’s where the F-35’s data fusion library comes in, combing through threat information to decide what the plane has detected. The plane, after combing through thousands of possible signatures, may suggest the pilot use his Eletro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) or his AESA radar to gather more data, depending on the situation.
Gen. Hostage points to the plane’s ability to gather enormous amounts of data, comb through it and very rapidly and simply present the pilot with clear choices as a key to its success
This article provides a good overview of EW suite, and some methods of threat ID:
EW system employs a range of dedicated antennas and shares the AESA antenna for tasks such as electronic support measures or signals collection and analysis. The F-35’s high-gain, electronically steered radar array provides jamming support under the control of the EW system.The EW system discriminates one emitter from another by determining signal characteristics such as frequency, pulse width and pulse repetition frequency. Mode determination includes defining the operating function of an emitter at a given time, e.g., search, acquisition, tracking, based on known characteristics
The integrated core processor aggregates and correlates multisource data and formulates solutions for presentation to the pilot, mixing the best data from each sensor. This maximizes detection ranges and provides the pilot options to evade, engage, counter or jam threats.
Instead of having the pilot operate EW and IR displays separately to detect threats with the individual sensors, “the airplane can deploy the optimal countermeasures with or without pilot action,” Branyan says. This level of automation and improved situational awareness shortens the timeline of detection and response
FBWCouple of minor points fbw; nowhere in that article does it make mention of the “classify based on emissions, fan blades, “other” ways” you are claiming…
Which them makes it somewhat difficult to make the absolute statement that: “It punches clean holes etc.”In addition I’m aware that F-15’s have NCTI and have used it in combat, and am relatively comfortable that other platforms are perfectly capable today of identifying contacts through those methods you mention.
Which does rather make your little post look quite thin and substance less given that the link doesn’t support your claims and even if it did they are really nothing special for those who have a real interest in military aviation rather than just the F35!
That’s because your flaunting your ignorance again. Try reading up on what has already been released, process it, then come up with an arguement. That way you won’t waste everyone’s time reading your drivel. Another weak attempt Snafu… your making a fool of yourself. Go argue with the guys on F-16.net. You’ll love it, you can call each other fanboys, etc.
Here read up and then come up with an intelligent response:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/
http://defensetech.org/2014/06/18/air-force-develops-threat-data-base-for-f-35/
Sign In
