FBWi have a very precise question, if anyone can answer. Can AGP79 physically divide its antenna so as to simultaneouly (not fast switching) perform different tasks?
From what I’ve read, it’s fast switching (interleavened modes). Raytheon: “The agile beam enables the radar’s air-to-air and air-to-ground modes to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously, an unprecedented technological leap.”
Navy:”The radar’s active electronic beam scanning helps steer the radar beam at nearly the speed of light to optimize situational awareness and air-to-air and air-to-surface capability, Raytheon officials say. The agile beam enables the multimode radar to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously.”
FBWhumming along, and now you’re just an annoying kid yelling
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232843[/ATTACH]
And your now more of a joke…. You’re posting a concept drawing as proof? Do you realize one outcome of the F/A-XX program may be based on the F-35C? By the way, you obviously didn’t read my response to your other gem.
So here- Let’s look at where you went wrong, as usual-
there won’t be much trade off with regards to speed & RCS tho
Really, someone should point that out to aircraft designers that have noted the biggest challenges facing the next generation of fighter aircraft will be:
Materials- because as I pointed out, Radar Absorbent Materials become less effective the hotter they get.
Thermal control- in the absence of vents, using fuel as a heat sink has reached it’s limits.
(all of which I could source and show you why maintaining RCS and increasing speeds in the next generation of aircraft will be as difficult if not more so. than matching or exceeding the maneuverability of the current generation of fighters will be)
See, the problem is, that you love to post these unsubstantiated, un-researched opinions such as:
out of these options, the gripen has the best odds of intercepting PAK-FA,
but like the israelis & everyone else found out, it aint easy to intercept anything that’s faster
that you pull out of your bum with no context or clue what you are talking about.
So, for now on, I will ruthlessly tear into any “proclamation” posts that you are so fond of. And most of all, be original, keep the “kid yelling” comments.
FBW[QUOTE]
FBW – The CSBA is NOT PART OF THE DoD!
Maybe if you would stop yelling at people, you would actually read the bit that says
The CSBA report carries far more weight than usual because it was drafted under the leadership of deputy defense secretary Robert Work and his senior advisers, according to a source directly involved in its production. It is intended to launch a detailed discussion of a major change in national strategy, inside and outside the Pentagon. Author Robert Martinage, a former senior Pentagon official, “can neither confirm nor deny” the extent of Work’s involvement, he tells Aviation Week.
QUOTE]
The content of the article is not the problem. In fact, I rather agree that the Air force, and Navy need to re-think how they are spending their budget. The structuring of the F-22 and F-35 programs insured that all other considerations, such as JSTARS, AWACS replacements were pushed aside. I also agree the paper’s idea that the UCLASS program and LRS-B should be a priority even if it reduced the number of F-35’s from 1,763. The Navy should be pursuing the Super Hornet upgrades and X-47 over the F-35C (I’m no fan of the F-35C).
The issue is: Robert Work does not speak for the DoD. The Air force has stuck firm to no cuts in funding or numbers to the program. The one poster’s attempt to link the article to how the DoD “feels” about the F-35 was childish and incorrect. So my comment and reaction were warranted. CSBA does not speak for the Air Force leadership, nor the DoD.
I can only imagine the reaction if someone posted a study from the Lexington Institute explaining how the F-35 was the “best fighter ever”, and claiming the information was correct because study was conducted by former members of the Pentagon. I think you get my point.
FBWWell, the F-35 has a self diagnostic suite. The plane gives you a diagnostic result and currently you send that back to LM if I am not mistaken. Then if something is wrong LM tells you and you can’t fix it. They have to fix it for you. You have zero fixing capability as it stands now.
Actually, no the ALIS logistics system is still having issues. Now here is something tangible and relevant to complain about with the F-35. The self monitoring HUMS is not integrated with ALIS yet. That is a major hurtle and headache in the making.
FBWok, i wont argue against your faith
Hey, hows that theory of that it’s easy to design high speed stealthy aircraft working out?
FBW:rolleyes:
But, you are right, the earth is flat. Carry on. :stupid:
Read your original comment! “The DoD …..thinks the F-35 is a piece of..” In some grand design to show us all the true feelings on the f-35 in the Pentagon, you seemed to have missed that The CSBA is NOT PART OF THE DoD! Your comment therefore went from foolish to uninformed and foolish.
FBWhttp://aviationweek.com/defense/new-strategy-would-cut-f-35s-boost-bombers-and-uavs
So… now even the DoD is starting to realise the F-35 is a load of sh_t.
[spare the “but but but force multiplier, but but but stealth, but but but 5th generation, but but but network-centric, but but but lockeed, but but powerpoint” crap that will inevitably be a ‘response’.]
CSBA huh? Seems you are as uninformed about the machinations between the Pentagon and Think tanks than you are about aircraft. Thanks for the laugh, use google to check what CSBA is first next time.
FBWA few misapprehensions here.
Sea Gripen is not STOBAR. That has not been the preferred option for a long time and AFAIK is off the table now.
As for F-35B – Sea Gripen will be far less expensive to acquire, infinitely less costly to operate (which will outweigh development cost), faster, more agile and (almost certainly) appreciably superior in warload and range. It will also be more survivable with the possible exception of internal-weapons-only mode. Brazil has a good chance of selling to India sometime in the 2020s.
MB – The deal doesn’t make a lot of sense if you plan to buy 36 jets. However, it has been made clear all along that Brazil will have a share in all Gripens (106 added to firm orderbook in past year). It is also hard to see Brazil selecting a different aircraft to replace its remaining fighters. It’s also been suggested (and very likely) that Brazil will assemble all JAS 39Fs for worldwide markets, and 39Es for Latin America and possibly others.
CATOBAR for the Sea Gripen? That would require a strengthening (or replacement) of the landing gear, structural strengthening at the rear of the aircraft for a tailhook, on top of the modification to aircraft systems for resistance to the salt environment needed for naval aviation. That would seem prohibitively expensive for the limited number of aircraft that would result from the program. I doubt India would be a player, unless the AMCA program gets derailed (which recent history would support).
FBWIf ideal maneuverability = ideal RCS, you’re right
If ideal maneuverability =/= ideal RCS, you’re wrongYou’re about as wrong as you can get, there won’t be much trade off with regards to speed & RCS tho
There is your mistake, speaking on ideal configurations. Every design is a balance of requirements. Speed and maneuverability also have conflicting requirements, yet we have aircraft capable of high speed and maneuverability. You are attempting to “prove” that the F-35 cannot have a low RCS because it is a fighter, then using a chart of various configurations from the loser of the JSF competition to make that point. The RCS, speed, and maneuverability requirements for a bomber or an ISR drone would be different than that of a fighter, hence different shape. In essence, the premise of your argument ignores the balance that goes into ANY design.
P.S., your point on speed and RCS is wrong too. RAM is less effective as it gets hot (which is one of the challenges in choosing materials in a stealth aircraft, which anyone with rudimentary understanding of the topic would know), and of course there is the issue instability at supersonic speeds with flying wing designs (and tail-less aircraft in general), which can be mitigated to some degree with TVC.
FBWdo you think the tail control surfaces, necessary for maneuvering, is irrelevant to RCS ?
yes, i do have solid number: 446 kg/m^2
Oh Obligatory, still grasping at wing loading without any other consideration. We’ve all been there done that, I won’t rerun the numbers on the Mig-29, F-16, et al. again. It’s enough to note that you still don’t grasp that modern fighters are not tubes with wings, or that engine design and specifications impact performance at altitude. Or for that matter, you conviction of the F-35’s performance is poor is based on the one test point released: Mach .8 at 15,000 feet. I would point out that the F-22 had a similar controversy with missing a KPP on .9 mach, 30,000 feet turn performance. People jumped on that as “proof” that the F-22 had worse maneuverability than it’s contemporaries. Those same critics (Wheeler, Sprey, et al. used wing loading as the piece de resistance), how’s that work out?
@ LO
FBW – and the principles of low-RCS design and aerodynamics have changed exactly how? The basic conclusions highlighted in the report are reflected across the spectrum of LO designs today, from RQ-180, Neuron and Taranis to the F-35, J-20 and J-31.
What has changed in the 20 years since that report: computing power that would allow for accurate modeling and design of a LO aircraft, RAM for starters. No one would disagree with your examples having the best overall shaping for RCS : RQ-180, Neuron, etc. What I disagree with is Obligatory’s constant, incorrect, conclusion that maneuverability and RCS are mutually exclusive. And I for one, get tired of watching you sniper at anyone’s posts that are remotely positive toward the F-35, then defend or “interpret” Obligatory’s biased declarations that have no basis in fact.
FBWits at which speed thrust equals drag, increase thrust or decrease drag,
decrease drag is preferable ..,. IMO
Exactly what type of drag are you referring to: In aerodynamics there are several types of drag, and the reduction of one may increase other. In designing an aircraft, reducing supersonic drag may impact efficient subsonic flight, or maneuverability, or conversely a design for efficient flight and subsonic maneuverability will impact supersonic flight. Hhhmmmm, not that simple.
FBWBecause Brazil doesn’t need American dependence, super-expensive wunderhardware, or force projection capabilities. It needs domestic development (that should probably be in caps to emphasise the primacy of this consideration), force modernisation, and skills retention — at low cost. Gripen and Sea Gripen are the solutions that meet those needs. F-35 is totally unsuitable.
Discarding the whole Rii anti-American tripe, the Gripen is a great choice for Brazil. But the Sea Gripen (Gripen M, or whatnot), is no boon to Brazil. What Saab is offering is essentially: Hey, spend a few billion to develop a Gripen that can operate off a STOBAR carrier and you will have rights to it. The market for a STOBAR Gripen is non-exsistant. India has the Mig-29K and the Tejas already, and the other operators of a STOBAR setup, Russia and China have their own. Who exactly is the Gripen M going to appeal to?
FBWfrom this NASA evaluation, we can conclude that you can have low RCS, or you can have high agility,
but you cant have both at the same time.
We can also conclude that ATF, or F-22, prioritized agility over RCS, and even the mighty F-35 did,
albeit with shonky result anywhere above 30k ft
That is not from NASA, it’s from Boeing circa 1990’s prior to the JSF competition. Stop peddling old, tired charts that you continuously trot out to support weak arguments. Your manner on this forum lately is that of a common troll. Posting inflammatory and incorrect crap, then not responding to the outcry. Then doing it again. BTW, you have solid data on the performance of the F-35 at 30,000 feet? I think not, try again.
The study is here: http://notreally.info/transport/planes/jsf/x-32/pdf/19960000737_1996900737.pdf
It was to look at configurations of the x-32, NASA did some of the modeling.
FBWout of these options, the gripen has the best odds of intercepting PAK-FA,
but like the israelis & everyone else found out, it aint easy to intercept anything that’s faster
Yeah, that’s not too absurd of a statement. Get it through your head, the Gripen was built to be a low cost fighter analougous to the to the F-16’s then in service. The Gripen’s T/W ratio is worse than: F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, hell even the much maligned F-35 has a T/W ratio equal to one with 75% fuel. It’s top speed of mach 2, on paper, is in no way superior to any others, especially when you consider that ordinance will have a bigger impact on the smaller, lighter Gripen. The NG versions don’t look like the they will have the excess power of the other Eurocanards either (without the F-414 upgrade).
FBWThe AIM-9X Block III is there to provide six MRAAM shots (external and internal). This was confirmed by the Navy AAM program manager at the Navy League show earlier this year.
Old charts don’t mean a lot in F-35-land and videos mean less. There has been nothing serious said about six internal AMRAAMs since 2010, I believe. Moreover, see official FAQs from 2011, since tossed down the memory hole:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110902125702/http://www.f35.com/resources/f-35-town-hall/q-and-a.aspx
How many internal air-to-air missiles with the F-35 carry? Will the weapons bays be designed to carry six AMRAAMs?
Four internal air-to-air missiles is the current requirement and capability. New, smaller developmental weapons and suspension and release equipment may increase the capacity in follow-on development, but no firm weapons and suspension and release equipment candidates to accomplish this have been identified to date.
There is a difference though in not being able to carry six amraams (which modeling suggests that it can), and the issue that the BRU-67, 68 are single ejectors on stations 4 & 8. They would need to modify it with two “shoes” for dual Amraam carriage. Considering it’s already been modified for the SDB carriage, it’s probably possible. I just don’t think it’s high on priorities to develop, and test a modified ejector rack to placate internet concerns.
Sign In
