FBWThere is a scenario where maintenance of stealth coatings could result in lethal downtime for an aircraft.
For each iteration of LO aircraft, the maintenance time of the coatings has decreased. For the recent Fibermat, it is cured directly into the skin of the aircraft. Access panels have tighter tolerances without the need of tape (though rarely accessed areas and areas of high exposure still have gap filler).
For certain missions , Id take a strange shaped F117 if it meant that I was relying less on coatings and all of the maintenance headaches therein
That facets of the F-117 was a result of the limitations in CAD at the time. The shaping was obsolete by the time the F-117 flew. Tacit Blue proved that RF low observable designs could have curvature. The F-117 did rely on coatings, very labor intensive coatings that had to be cut into for maintenance. Worse, it was easy to damage, required taping:
Application of the RAM proved to be rather tricky, and that ground crews had to be careful to seal all joints thoroughly before each flight. RAM came in linoleum-like sheets, which were cut to shape and bonded to the skin to cover large areas. Doors and access panels had to be carefully checked and adjusted for a tight fit between flights and all gaps had to be filled in with conductive tape and then covered over with RAM. Paint-type RAM was available, but it had to be built up by hand, coat by coat. Even the gaps around the canopy and the fuel-filler door had to be filled with paint-type RAM before each flight. Ground crews had to even make sure that all surface screws were completely tight, since even one loose screw for an access panel could make the aircraft show up like a “barn door coming over the horizon” during radar signature tests.
FBWYes I’m sure it’s easy to believe that radar has made quantum leaps in capability, but LO shaping and materials have not advanced since the days of the F-117. It does take the suspension of belief, coupled with selective reading of sources like Sputnik to formulate that conclusion. (Joking)
In all seriousness, read back on the previous page (24-25) about PCA and the counterpart PEA studies as I posted several links. They have ideas of where they are going with PCA. The questions are more associated with: size, maneuverability, propulsion- therefore speed, range, costs. It will be LO, you can be assured of that. There is no scenario where being easier to detect is an advantage.
FBWI purposedly did not jump into that cost affair 😉 . It is just the “compared to the Rafale”. What was he referring to?
It was a querulous comment to pointedly respond to Nic’s. Obviously you can read the NAO report on SDD and follow on dev costs included in the U.K. procurement.
It is ironic considering the recent row over assumed costs presented the last few pages.
FBWThat’s just ~$236 Million per plane with only 5 years support. Cheapish.
Yes, cheapish. Especially compared to the Rafale deals which don’t include dev costs.
FBWThe U.S. never offered the F-35 to India. Lockheed had asked to brief Indian officials on the F-35. India officially has expressed no interest (at least the MoD), and the U.S. Congress has given no consent on anything other than a briefing. Ash Carter stated that there was no specific reason that the U.S. wouldn’t offer the F-35, but that the decision was India’s. Whatever Admiral Arun Prakash stated, MoD has rejected previous suggestions. The Indian Navy previously requested information on the F-35 in 2011.
FBWSAAB announced in June 2016 that they had a prototype of a GaN AESA radar, and that they would be
flying soon.http://defenceupdate.in/saab-offers-cutting-edge-gan-aesa-radar-technology-india-selects-gripen/
Visited SAAB last autumn and they said that the reason the Selex radar was selected was timing.
The decision on radar was made way before the GaN could be shown.
Where does it say it will be flying soon? The article, and every article I’ve seen has stated the same thing
“We talked in India – we said if India would choose Gripen, then we would be willing to share this technology and co-develop it. We have a lot to contribute but we’re willing to share that
They are looking for a partner to invest in developing said radar. They have shown models, but obviously need an application. The latest offering is a sensor package for the Tejas:
https://www.compoundsemiconductor.net/article/101064-saab-offers-gan-based-sensor-for-indian-fighter-aircraft.html
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/saab-unveils-fighter-sensor-package-tejas-lca/
(picture)
FBWhttp://www.richardsonrfpd.com/drc/English/Documents/Eric_Higham_GaN_Applications_Blog.pdf
Despite undeniable performance advantageous for power applications and widespread usage in
military applications, commercial adoption of the technology for RF applications has been much
slower than expected. Initial concerns about reliability and repeatability have become moot as
deployed systems build a compelling set of actual metrics. The cost issue is much thornier. To
take full advantage of the material advantages of GaN, just about every RF manufacturer uses
a GaN-on-SiC wafer scheme. Low volumes, the cost of the SiC wafers, coupled with wafer
diameters in the 2” – 4” range all contribute to GaN devices being much more expensive than
competitive technologies. Research that we conducted three years ago had GaN running about
three times the price of GaAs and LDMOS in power applications
Commercial use of GaN based applications seem to be another piece in the puzzle of driving down costs. According the the above, 2017 will see a large growth in commercial use of GaN based electronics,
“It does appear that the RF market segments that have been discussed have passed the tipping point”
FBWF-22 “Update 6”? https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/14/f22.aspx
2019 the F-22 fleet will begin to get increment 3.2B. This article mentions a “software update 6”, which includes new antennas. Have not seen anything regarding this, what antennas they are talking about (IFDL?, Link-16?, AN/ALR-94?). I doubt it would be for the AN/APG-77, as the T/R modules were updated.
Update 5 seems to have focused on the AN/APG-77:
Update 5 combines an OFP upgrade providing software driven radar enhancements, Ground Collision Avoidance System software, and the incorporation of limited AIM‑9X capabilities
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/af/2016f22a.pdf
This has not been mentioned in the F-22 incremental roadmap, SAR, or DOT&E documents. Anyone have some insight? B-I-O?
FBWLogical Fallacies 101: Ad Hominem (Attack the Source)
Welcome to Logical Fallacies 101, an effort to help foster more reasonable, logical debate wherever else you may find yourself discussing differences of opinion.
Welcome to rational thinking, something you’ve been struggling with on this forum. Just because you agree with the source does not make it valid. Again and again, your citing information that has been disproven. If you want to look ill informed, continue to defend APA. I am not attacking the source per se, I am pointing out their lack of qualifications.
They discredited themselves in public, at an official hearing, that does have an impact on how anyone views them. As far as Dr. Kopp goes, please show me where I’m wrong about his research. Please show evidence of his expertise in any of the relevant areas: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.
FBWThe main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.
Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.
Even replacing the GaA TRM’s of an array run about 2 million USD (2008- I recently was looking up NG costs associated with replacing the TRM of the APG-77), the costs might have come down since then due to volume. GaN isn’t there yet and replacing the modules of an existing fighter fleet’s radar, like the AN/APG-79 of the Super Hornet fleet, would run into the billions.
Like you said, I could see new AESA sets developed/manufactured in the early 2020’s using GaN, but retrofits are unlikely in the near future as most of these GaA sets are new and still relatively scarce outside of the US.
FBWTheir audit office qhowed that previous government DID vastly lie about F-35 procurement costs. It then became a political issue. Plitics have their own logics…
Thank goodness the Trudeau admin has been open and transparent on their CF-18 replacement program (sarcasm). This saga is only just beginning. Once the Boeing proposal is recieved and released the proverbial moose patties are going to go flying.
I disagree that there are surplus legacy hornets available. There aren’t, if there were the Marines would be actively trying to source them for parts.
FBWKopp claims to be an expert in areas where he has no experience. Here is his bio from where he actually works:
http://users.monash.edu/~carlo/
He could be considered an expert on cybersecurity and networks, that does not make him versed in: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.
A search of his research publications on Google scholar gives the following:
Kopp, Carlo. The electromagnetic bomb-a weapon of electrical mass destruction. MONASH UNIV CLAYTON (AUSTRALIA), 1996.
Kopp, Carlo, and Ronald Pose. “Bypassing the home computing bottleneck: The suburban area network.” Computer Architecture. Vol. 98. 1998.
Kopp, Carlo. “Moore’s law and its implications for information warfare.” 3rd International AOC EW Conference. 2002.
Islam, Muhammad Mahmudul, Ronald Pose, and Carlo Kopp. “A Link Layer Security Protocol for Suburban Ad-Hoc Networks.” proceedings of Australian Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference. 2004.
Castro, Maurice D., Ronald D. Pose, and Carlo Kopp. “Password-capabilities and the walnut kernel.” The Computer Journal 51.5 (2008): 595-607.
Islam, Muhammad Mahmudul, Ronald Pose, and Carlo Kopp. “Link layer security for sahn protocols.” Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2005. PerCom 2005 Workshops. Third IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2005.
I purposely left off the Airpower Australia papers as they were published only on thier website (not peer reviewed research), and removed one that was not peer reviewed or presented at a conference.
In other words, using APA as a source is akin to using “Gripen for Canada” blog as a reference. Airpower Australia used open source (in the case of Russian/Chinese radar systems- brochure claims) coupled with “analysis” that makes bias conclusions without supporting documentation. The Australian Parliamentary hearings on the F-35 buried their credibility (Kopp was conspicuously absent, most likely to protect his professional reputation).
FBWSince when APG 81 is GaN based???
GaN has a roughly 4 to 7 higher efficiency.
It isn’t. There isn’t an GaN based AESA fighter radar currently flying.
FBWIt is not POGO information at all. POGO is only cited when siad “costs have been discussed in press…” look at the tables below, there is the listing of the 3 main contracts and all the subsequent sub contracts from 2012 to 2016. and yes i’ll join him and i’m sure he’ll correct ASAP. Reading your link i suppose he quoted LRIP6 price tags instead of 7. If you read the article, as said above, the author says “cost perimeter is disputable”. This listing comes straight from USASPENDING.gov (that is Awarded money)
It seems the methodology is the same as in the flawed POGO article from 2014. The authors didn’t use that as a guide?
FBWI didn’t get past POGO, sorry. That is what the SAR reports are for. If the braintrust at POGO is typing, they are lying (or more specifically massaging numbers to suit their agenda, the contracts are open source).
I’ll even admit to not looking at their methodology. Winslow Wheeler has consistently trashed weapon procurement for decades, and consistently been wrong.
Sign In
