FBWSinatra, the connection to the MIRFS for the APG-79 is anecdotal. The plan for APG-73 upgrades (what became the APG-79) what part of super hornet program.
Spud is right about the lineage of the -81, it was more or less a clean sheet design based on tech developed from APG-77, not so for the -79.
FBWWow! so you counted from a dummy radar with cyrillic alphabet ??? Just asking because afiak NG is only claiming “more than a thousand”.
All official pics give a slightly side view, no view from straight on. Probably to discount what you guys are currently doing, or mask shapes of modules.
It’s not Cyrillic on that model btw, it says “Fixture attachment”
FBWThat is good news.. Looks like the APG81 will field comparable tech to APG-79. Which is exactly what I have claimed and in stark contrast to VNomad’s claims.
We don’t have any evidence about that. Presently, the APG-81 uses TRMs exactly matching the TRMs of APG-80 in size and shape, likely the same type..
That really doesn’t say a thing.. NG could have been chosen for whatever reasons – tech specs, cost, delivery schedules, risk assessment.. A claim that this proves some overwhelming superiority is absurd. Someone always has to win..
The APG-80 was reportedly based on the APG-77, the -81 came later, though also based on APG-77 tech. Considering there was talk of being able to retrofit the APG-81 front end to the APG-80, I’m going to say that there is a good reason for doing so. It should also be instructive that the APG-77 of the Raptor has been upgraded with some of the technology developed from the APG-81.
The APG-79 is based on the earlier APG-73, while it has a new front end and processor, it really was not a ground up design AESA, it was originally called the APG-73 RUG III. It cannot simultaneously scan air and provide ground mapping, communication, etc. It switches so fast (inter leavened) as to seem simultaneous to the user.
The APG-81 was designed as an AESA radar from the start. Whether it provides simultaneous, or near simultaneous air and ground modes is unclear (contradictory source info, possibly classified/sensitive). It will provide an electronic attack ability that the APG-79 lacks currently. The processing happens within the F-35’s core processors, which should give an idea of the processing power behind the radar T/R modules aside. So even IF the T/R modules are the same, it is a more advanced radar.
Which is more powerful? I doubt there will be a definitive answer on that, however the APG-79 has not been without it’s issues. Early reports gave it little advantage over the APG-73, it has since been improved. The APG-80 has been fitted to the block 60 Desert Eagle only, though there was talk of the F-16IN having the -80. If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on the APG-81, as it is not based on an earlier mechanically scanned array, nor was it developed for a foreign customer. Considering the great pains taken to make the technology of the F-35 tamper proof to the great annoyance of some partners, it would be logical to assume that the APG-81 is an advance over the previous two.
FBWuh, wanna bet the MiG-25 wasn’t pulling 9 g at 30k ft ?
in reality, no fighter can match this hypothetical fighter i was referring to, so yes, surprise is a factor.
So yes, 13g is expected limit at alt., while still under power
Your obsession with g is misplaced:
The missile does not try to trail and turn with the aircraft, as a following fighter would in a gun fight, mistake no.1
Mistake no.2- An aircraft sustaining a 9g turn would be as dead as an aircraft in a 5g turn if the missile fired at a side aspect cut the corner to complete the intercept
( the exception to all following: being a rear aspect attack where the missile at medium to long range would have a diffucult time turning with the fighter to complete intercept)
Mistake no.3- an aircraft’s ability to sustain a 9g turn at 30,000 feet would really be largely irrelevant to avoiding a missile( the turn would be of such short duration as to not matter whether altitude or speed were impacted for that instant). Give me an aircraft with a high instantaneous rate of turn with good pitch and roll.
Lastly, your confusion over what a sustained turn means is confounding considering it’s come up repeatedly. In other words, a hypothetical fighter flying around at 30,000 feet sustaining a 9 g turn would be as dead as a fighter flying straight: to the missile, the vector of the aircraft would change very little from Missile launch to impact.
FBWpowered or not, no missile can hit 30g at 30k ft, those missiles do that at low level while still under power,
ramjet & dual pulse changes nothing,
element of surprise got nothing to do with the issue
The very first amraam kill was from an f-16 flying at 30,000 feet against a mig-25. Wanna bet that aircraft was not flying at low level?
In reality, the aircraft’s ability to evade a missile is reliant on early detection. So yes, surprise is a factor. Ramjet powered aam’s like the meteor have excellent endgame energy. Did it occur to you that the reason a aam has to pull 5-6 g more than the target has to do with corner speed. The missile is traveling at four or five times the speed. The sharp turn to complete the intercept at high Mach results in high g load.
So yes, a missile traveling a high velocity, will pull a massive amount of g as it manuvers for intercept. The relatively old aim-9L could pull 13 g at 13 kilometers altitude.
FBWJay, you have me wishing that Canada does not choose the f-35 to spare us the repetitive, barely legible rants.
In the meantime can we reserve those to the f-35 thread so those who want to discuss other aircraft can be spared the F-35 drumbeat?
FBWIt’s not cleared for either amraam or sidewinder, not really a need to certify those on Rafale. The excellent Meteor, however, is; but it is one expensive missile.
FBWwhy would a fighter need to sustain 9g to avoid a missile in the first place?
The last ditch maneuver would more likely be a loaded roll maneuver, or bank to 90* with highest instantaneous turn rate available.
FBWSadly, some planes are regularly hitting 10.5g in demonstrations and are blocked to 11+g…
9g is nowhere to a limit. It depends on how fast you go from 0 to 9g, how long you have to endure gs etc.Btw (google trad from http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/f-35-torpedeert-budget-defensie-a2171078/ )
True, but that’s not exactly new either. There were some great stories from aceval/aimval trials where the f-15a- f-14a with nominal 7.33g limits were momentarily pushed above 10g. Amazing what interservice rivalry can do to ease placard limits.
The human body’s ability to withstand g varies from person to person, level of fitness, and support equipment. As the USAF experience with the combat edge suit shows, newer g suits may make it possible to withstand high g better, but the suit itself can become a problem.
There just isn’t much more to gain for manned fighters in the right side of the performance envelope, aside from marginally better high alt turn performance.
FBWunlikely a reflector add over 10% to area in this frequency, how big is the reflector ?
Out of sheer curiosity, where do you get the idea that a reflector would only add >10% to the reflectivity in the VHF range?
Mind you that there are many useful applications for luneburg lenses not centered on x or ku band specifically as some would associate with “narrow band stealth”.
FBWLuneburg lenses generally increase x-band reflection most, but are broadband reflectors. So, yes an f-22 with a lens will have an increased RCS across all wavelengths.
The Chinese claim is plausible if you consider- the lens, the fact that the F-22’s operating across the yellow sea probably had DT’s. And it’s easier to find your target when you know where to look. Cue the “stealth is dead” crowd.
FBWIs it possible to claim it is mature enough for the IOC status if it cant fire its gun? Part of the IOC definition is capablity to perform CAS (Gun + at least one guided bomb) amongst other things… SO IOC is pushed to 2019?
Come on, TU-22 the Marine IOC with 2b software is not the same as the USAF IOC with 3i, but the weapons are the same. It’s been posted multiple times, what weapons are cleared with basic war fighting 2b/3i. The right question would be, “what about the progress of the full warfighting software 3f with the delays to 3i integration”
The Marines seem cautiously optimistic about 2b software being ready for IOC. The software roadmap was laid out awhile ago so it’s not like the lack of software support for the gun till 3f is a surprise.
FBWFlanker have good nose authorities i know that, and F-15 is not exactly good at turning so i think it reasonable that in air show su-35 look a lot better ( especially when fuel is low)
The F-15 was built with a different idea of what the critical performance perimeters of a fighter were- 1960’s ideas of an energy fighter. The Su-27, and subsequent fighters have accentuated high alpha, ability to transition from one maneuver to another quickly through the use of high lift devices such as the LERX, slats, and relaxed stability that were not practical at the time the F-X project was started. Saying that the F-15 is not good at turning is not accurate, it’s sustained turning ability is still competitive. It is still an excellent energy fighter with equality or advantage in the vertical over more recent designs.
The F-35 is not an energy fighter such as the F-15, or even the 16. It’s acceleration is good, despite what LO and some doctored L-M charts posted say. It’s not what it was supposed to be- comparable with a block 50 with two amraams, but good. It WILL have excellent roll rate and bank to 90* into a turn due to it’s twin tail design with massive horizontal stabs set far back on the airframe. It would be instructive for some to look at the YF-22 wing design and compare it with the F-35. The US prefers the trapezoidal wing over delta-canard due to sig and good performance at high aoa and speeds, it’s not optimized for any but good at most speed regimes. It gives up some maneuverability, but then again, how long is a missile fight going to last in the era of all aspect missiles?
FBWJay, the gun pod exists- has been carried for aerodynamic test and fired on a test rig.
There is nothing particularly unique about the F-35’s gun pod: the gun itself has been around, and the poded 25mm cannon is no particular leap in technology that involves risk.
It is one of the weapons to be fully certified during SDD, and integrated with all other SDD weapons in the full war fighting 3c/ 3f software.
FBWAFAIK, the Rafale was tested up to Mach 2.0 but is limited to Mach 1.8 in operational service… so Mach 1.5-1.6 with some (supersonic) tanks seems plausible. The point is however, most fighters outperform the F-35 in an air-to-air configuration, minus the F-18 series, and I don’t know about the Gripen. Some even beat or match the F-35 when carrying one drop tank.
@ FBW: according to my copy of the F-15E manual, the F-15E-229 top speed with CFTs is only limited by CFT design limit of Mach2, on a standard day that is. It’s Mach 1.9 @ standard day +10°C.
Back to the F-35… wasn’t it already tested up to Mach 1.67? The A-model I guess, will be interesting to learn how fast the F-35C can go, and how long it takes to get there.
look again, the CFT design limit is only to a certain altitude (then drag is the limit). The F-35 has been out to mach 1.67 but as I pointed out mach means little. The F-35 A/C are limited to 700 knots (different altitudes), the “b” to 630 knots. The 1.6 mach limit is probably 30,000 ft for the A/C and 35,000 for the “b”. The higher mach number may correlate with a higher altitude in testing. In any course, it’s not a design limit, per se, those were the requirements set out by the program (A/C 700 knots, A- to exceed speed of sound at sea level, B- 630 knots) Full weapons release at those speeds.
Yes, with one DT most legacy fighters match or exceed the F-35. It’s 18,400 pound tankage is a blessing and a curse, one that had to be paid for LO properties.
edit- oops put gallon instead of pounds.
Sign In
