FBWI see your point. But if the interleaving mode has such short time different then what is the point of dividing the array into sub arrays for different tasks ?. You will lose our on accuracy and detection range
That’s what I was saying. In any case, Halloweene was pointing this out as a future advantage of the Rafale. The use of the array as a data link while performing sensor functions as demonstrated by Raytheon, NG, and L-3 communications does sound promising. There has been nothing else reported on this since the testing. Does make one curious.
FBWI beg to differ. See 1:32
It uses interleaving, it is near simultaneous (nanoseconds). The array is not divided and tasked in different modes at the same time, the fast switching is one of the advantages of an AESA set.
From SLD- presentation by Michael Skaff (principle engineer on the F-35) https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/combat-systems-fusion-engine-for-the-f35
APG-81 Radar Active Electronically Scanned Array Interleaved Search and Track Data Link Air-to-Air Target Detection/Track Synthetic Aperture Radar With Effective BDA Ground Moving Target Detection Cruise Missile UCAV 231© 2011 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
FBWAPG-81 can form multiple beam at the same time ( in fact, practically speaking, any AESA can do that because they use seperate T/R modules instead of rely on a single traveling wave tube ,so different part of the aperture can transmit at different frequency )
Not what Halloweene was talking about. He was talking about different modes operating simultaneously,. The APG-81 can’t do that (according to open source material), neither can the RBE2. They use interleaving which is pretty much the same thing to the user- generating a SAR map and track while scan for example, the switch is measured in nanoseconds so I’m not convinced it’s that imperative. (In the case of the APG-77 and APG-81, studies by DARPA of using the AESA as a datalink while tasking the antenna as a sensor have been demonstrated. It is unclear how far this has proceeded into operational use):
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2009/07/08/defense-it1-radar.aspx
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2006/08/01/radar-transmitting-data/
http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/aircraft-com.htm
He is talking about different parts of the array tasked simultaneously. From what is available, this was very much a study Thales was funded to do for a future Array for the Rafale (meaning not the current radar). According to the link above, it was funded in 2014 for some future mid-life update for the Rafale in the late 2020’s early 2030’s pending maturity of the technology.
FBWMsphere, look up the current range of the F-35A according to DOT&E. Then look at F-16C flight manual.
FBWTo be honest, there’s nothing new in there. Previously discussed on here. The usual: some valid issues, some non-issues, a healthy dose of conjecture, and the usual “A-10, lightweight fighter” recommendations.
FBWPlease don’t answer obligatory- he knows he’s wrong. Just post back to the last pages when he was embarrassed on this topic….. for the 10th time. Oblivious to the obvious.
FBWBtw hopsalot, AdA was very happy with the change from US modules to European ones. Much more regularperformances among modules. Physical division of the antenna is coming (MELBAA programfunded in (2014) that will allow simultaneous allowment of diferent parts of the antenna to different tasks. (nad not switching very rapidly like APG81) for ex. I let you guess what will be the next step when will be demonstrated the capability to phusically separate several antennas of a sinle radar…
Source this please- AESA have “near simultaneous modes” in other words interleaving modes. Which U.S. ones did the AdA use? There are several foundries in the US, maybe DGA shouldn’t buy the cheapest ones :). What is the timetable for this physical division because there is nothing, zero information on it other than:
– THALES has this to say on their site
“Active electronic scanning makes it possible to switch radar modes quickly, thereby enabling operational functions to run simultaneously”
–https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/active-electronically-scanned-array-aesa…
In other words, it’s exactly the same as the US AESA only smaller and with an older back end.
Nevermind, I found it http://www.air-cosmos.com/futur-radar-multirole-pour-le-rafale-25687
Goods not as advertised Hallow, it is for the Rafale mid-life update in the late 2020’s-30’s of an advanced AESA that does not yet exist.
FBWPOGO report “F-35 Continues to Stumble- http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/f35-continues-to-stumble.html#conclusion
Entirely predictable, entirely flawed. At least they could have stuck with the latest DOT&E issues rather than devoting so much space to issues that have been fixed, addressed, or simply wrong. POGO should stand for: Purposely Omitting Guilelessness & Objectivity. But their track record is impeccable (if one considers being incorrect, irresponsible, and ill-informed on defense issue a positive):
Here is POGO testifying to kill the F-22 multiyear procurement (that worked out well, 187 F-22’s for 10 expeditionary wings). http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/verbatim/4/71696/testimony-slams-us-air-force%27s-plans-for-f_22-funding.html
Here is POGO’s report on the M-1 Abrams: http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/90s/ns-m1tank-1990.html
Pogo attacked the Blackhawk helicopter – files since taken off their website.
Pogo attacked the Patriot missile- most files since removed bar one talking about the friendly fire incident.
FBWM It is already struggling to gain weight… And EOTS showed internal thingies do not evolve as fast as … eg. designation pods.
It has gained weight quite nicely over the years, certainly no signs of bulimia. EOTS doesn’t show that at all, EOTS was cutting edge when developed for the F-35. It is the F-35’s development that became the issue.
Example- the AdlA has spend a considerable amount of money procuring Damocles targeting pods for the Mirage and Rafale fleet. Did that stop DGA from awarding Thales a contract for the PDL NG (Damocles XF)? Do you think that Rafales will stop carrying older Damocles pods as soon as new targeting pods enter service? EOTS already has a replacement ready for flight testing. Should anyone want it, they can have today’s state of the art targeting system on the F-35 within a year or so (or wait for Block 4.2). I really don’t see the queue forming yet, so maybe this is a non-issue.
FBWHeritage foundation – 2018 Defense Authorization Act study
http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/preventing-defense-crisis-the-2018-national-defense-authorization-act-must-begin
http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/BG3205.pdf
some key points:
Nav Air
– increase spares and depot capacity over buying new build F-18 E/F
– Buy 16 more Growlers
USAF
– Increase retention and numbers of pilot and skilled crew “The Air Force should immediately institute a graduated incentive-pay program for aircraft maintainers that runs for the duration of a maintenance career, and increase flight-incentive pay for each of the 10-year groupings by a factor of seven.”
-Increase O&S funding
-accelerate F-35 buy, but cap procurement of the type to 1,260. Even at an accelerated buy rate it would take production into the 2030’s (ironic- roughly 1,200 was the production number I see as realistic). Keep the fourth gen fleet relevant until then.
Also;
– another round of BRAC
– more funding for electronic warfare
– upgraded missile defense
FBWNo, that was not my words (nor the meaning), that is your interpretation of them.
Be happy to discuss this on a separate thread as to what I mean.
FBWKGB is right on this.. A curved shape will never be as predictable as a straight angled edge and will always have reflections to all possible directions which, then have to be handled by RAM.. there is no way around it..
No- not when your considering a multifaceted aircraft vs something like a flying wing. No, he’s not right. The only reason the F-117 was faceted was due to computing power of the time. There have been exactly two LO aircraft and prototypes that exhibit that type of shaping. We can count the number of UAV, Bombers, prototypes, fighters, that have both a lower RCS and more aerodynamic shape than the said F-117 as a matter of record.
Not getting into this here. Simply put, no.
FBWKGB, repeating this does not make it any more true the second time around. Your post shows an astounding lack of understanding on why the F-117 looks as it does, a misunderstanding of RAM, and a continued misunderstanding of LO principles. Please do basic research before continuing to post on this topic ( better yet, form a new thread for all of your stealth ideas and musings).
FBWLM would need to replace or re-enforce the 2nd door for such purpose. Which means more weight.
Based on what? The door is not bearing the load. Look at how the LAU-147 launcher is attached to the door (should say hinge) on other side.
Here is a view of where they attach: http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_manufacturing/a/sdd_f35manfa_057.jpg
FBWSo unless the 3rd AIM-120 is mounted on the door, there is no other space for it…?
If they hinges the missile on the door, goes supersonic and open the W-bay doors.. yep that should totally work.
Probably mean LAU-147 on opposite bay door. Likely fitting two launchers where the BRU-68 bomb launcher is would require significant separation tests with possible interference.
Why wouldn’t it “totally work”? The aircraft has a requirement to launch weapons at 700 knots (though as of last DOT&E that is restricted in operational aircraft).
The bay is big enough: as B-I-O stated, the plan was to pack them into the A-G station, perhaps they still mean to. Or it’s possible for ease of integration that they plan to fit launcher on bay door. It certainly is deep enough to carry two AMRAAM on that side.
https://www.kongsberg.com/~/media/KOG/News/2013/JSM%20internal%20carriage%20bay.ashx?la=en
Sign In
