FBWf-35 only out-ranges gripen E with heavy loads, if that even,
that imply anti ship weapons in finlands case,
but the ranges at which finland would launch attacks on russian ships is exceptionally short
I’m sure most services would consider the 3 EFT’s the Gripen has to carry to match the F-35’s range a pretty heavy load. That configuration is so heavy in fact, that the Gripen E/F wouldn’t be able to carry much of anything else.
FBWBy sharing you mean sharing with others? That means a group of APG-81s would be able to create a large SAR shared map while the APG-77s probably would not due to limited bandwidth? But individual capabilities of each radar for the SAR mode are identical? Is that what you meant?
Both can share SAR imaging with other aircraft, ships, ground forces provided they can receive them (edit-in theory. It would be directional. As of now, this ability has been demonstrated, it is unclear if operational):
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2006/08/01/radar-transmitting-data/
The APG-81 will have a mode they call “big SAR” that can generate a large area high resolution map in a single image (rather than stitching together a map). Not groups of F-35’s. Northrop was also working on adding that mode to the APG-83, no word on the APG-77(V1) being upgraded with a similar capability.
FBWfinding a specific article on the TRM fitted aren’t referenced in the average defense article. Northrop has stated that the X-band fourth gen TRM are the same for the APG-77 (v1), APG-81, and APG-83.
(edit- here is a specific reference from the Singapore airshow write up (2006)-http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2006-12-06/fighters-set-… )
The latest, fourth-generation T/R design was based on the APG-80/81 arrays, but it is also being retrofitted into the APG-77. This means every F-22A from Lot 4 production and beyond will have an AESA built with the same T/R components that are in the F-35 and F-16E/F radar arrays.
The new T/R modules were apparently to be fitted to the block 20’s onward:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-mip.htm
The APG-83 mentions the commonality-
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsnorthrop-to-start-apg-83-sabr-production-for-taiwanese-f-16s-4502540
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SABR-GS/Pages/default.aspx
You can also look up the NG foundry offerings. The F-22 and F-35 do (or did) share the same GaA T/R modules.
FBWWrong.
Everything from the T&Rs, processors, filters, & components are at least 15 years newer.
Certainly the back end, software are newer. The TR modules are the same fourth generation design as fitted to the APG-81. That was started on the last few lots of F-22’s produced, likely backfitted to the others.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANAPG80AESARadar/Documents/…
@Msphere- the APG-81 has a higher transfer rate for sharing SAR images. The so-called wide area “big SAR” mode coming in block 4 will be a major step up over the APG-77
FBWHowever I take it it is probably possible for the F-35 to get within EOTS range to have more accurate targetting data and to datalink the coordinates to the F-22s armed with SDBs. The F-22s can better saturate the target radars with multiple SDBs per strike.
F-35’s have already dropped GBU-39’s. The loadout is the same (8) as in the F-22. The integration of GBU-53/B (SDB-II) is set for 2022.
FBWSo what’s the most likely:
1/ FInland joins Nato & the US installs missiles
2/ Russia attacks Finland.You have one hour.
Neither;
Finland joining NATO has an even probability if the current tensions continue. There is little chance of the U.S. basing any type offensive, or ABM capable missiles in Finland without Russia renouncing nuclear disarmament agreements (which they won’t do).
The probability of Russia invading Finland is about as probable as the U.S. basing ABM missiles in Finland- nearly zero.
FBWNo, it isn’t surprising that AFM or various defense blogs published the unconfirmed story, it would have been major news. The reports sent defense reporters scrambling to find out anything about the alleged attack. Lara Seligman (AvWeek) was on twitter reaching out to contacts within Israel and IDF trying to get confirmation. It would appear there was smoke but no fire.
FBWdisagree, the swedes wont have the specialized equipment to load even a single amraam onto an F-35,
so there wont be any shared airfields, at least not that finland can operate from, just as an escape plot
Please elaborate on what specialized equipment is needed to load an AMRAAM onto a F-35 that would be different from any other fighter. Or are we talking in Obligatory fantasy worlds where facts are irrelevant to the conversation?
Edit (addition)- if that were any concern, the AMRAAM can, and has been manhandled. It weighs 356lbs.
FBWOr there is nothing nefarious, and there is no one and nothing “behind” any of this. Perhaps you should be asking yourself the right question “Why do I swallow the negative propaganda about the F-35 unquestioningly when it comes from ill-informed sources, while I ignore the officers who have developed, been briefed, and fly the F-35”.
“F-35 is a supercruiser alright”
At this point, everyone seems to understand the general meaning of the quotes. You CHOOSE to parse this, ad nauseam, into some misleading accusation of falsehood. Would you like to repeat your theory that “The F-35 dives for 150 nmi to stay supersonic?”
“F-35 is already in combat alright”
– I very much doubt a French journalist working for Le Figaro is interesting in disseminating Lockheed propaganda. More likely, his source was confused or repeating gossip (assuming the story is incorrect, as we all are postulating). It isn’t surprising that the story was repeated in Air Forces Monthly, and elsewhere. There are two sources, the one the French journalist quotes, and the Syrian report that went out on twitter. While both are likely wrong, neither would qualify as propaganda.
FBWThe 120D requires a different datalink so there is some hardware to change. And just look at how hard it’s been to integrate it on the F-22. The 120D also has more features, so there is surely more software to write to take advantage of that.
The timeline for integration on the F-22 had nothing to do with it being “hard”. The integration schedule set forth in RDT&E documents going back to 2012 stated date for integration on the F-22 in 2017/18. This was predicated on several factors: The Aim-120D OT was six months behind schedule, increment 3.2B OT&E was scheduled for 2017 (since the 2011 modernization roadmap) therefore the Aim-120D wouldn’t be integrated until 3.2B is complete, and the integration schedule was based on need. The Navy pushed for early integration on the F-18 E/F, followed by the F-16/-15 for the USAF. The need to integrate the Aim-120D on the F-22 was less urgent than for the legacy fleet.
FBW100% agree, but it’s out there in (actually Air forces monthly, not combat aircraft), therefore it was worth posting to see if anyone else had heard rumblings (especially in other countries). Again, if it were U.S. Aircraft rumored to be used, I would brush it off as absurd. The IAF does things their own way.
My apologies for the response, to me it appeared you were attacking the poster, not the veracity of the news.
FBWYou will find all kind of alternativ facts about Syria in there..
But pls do us a big favor and leave such “news” to the few usual suspects in this forum.
Mind you i do not put you in that segment.
Ah, so an article in “Combat Aircraft” by the company that operates this forum is “tinfoil hat” material?
I know you wouldn’t put me in that category of who should post news, I don’t quote RT, or Sputnik. Run along now there Haavarla, I think they just introduced a new paint scheme on the Su-35 for you to salivate over.
FBWWell I guess there is a microscopic chance that this is…. wait for it…..
alternativ facts; )
In both of my posts, I expressed doubt that the report is accurate. That was why I included couching terms such as: “unconfirmed” and “alleged”. There is still the possibility that the French journalist who claims to have received the information from Israeli officers is telling the truth. There is also the issue of Syrian news reporting that it was an air strike, only to then report that it was a “missile attack”. The video sounds as if Jets were passing overhead.
Possibly, there will be more information released, or this will pass as rumor. If it were reported that U.S. F-35’s were used, I would be 100% in agreement it was baseless . The Israeli’s do things their own way.
My follow up post was reflective of your one sided skepticism. As I said, your reaction was entirely amusing and predictable.
FBWWhats that smell.. its the BS stank
1st April is early this year.
Not saying it isn’t. Posting it because it’s out there.
On the other hand, love your reaction, ” must be untrue! It paints the F-35 in a good light and hurts my obsession with Russian tech…. the S-300 can’t be defeated”….. worth posting it just for that.
FBWUnconfirmed reports that F-35I were used in strikes against targets in Syria (including S-300).
http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-f-35s-seen-combat/
Alleged footage:
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlbinSzakola/status/819711460997812224/video…
Edit- more from Syrian news with same video, this is either a game of telephone- news reporting the same unconfirmed report, mistaken intel, or Israel really used its two F-35. Considering the two arrived in December, I’d say it’s one of the two former.
https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/video-footage-israeli-jets-atta…
Sign In
