- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,424
- Reaction score
- 9,222
SpudmanWP said:The F-35 has an ESM from BAE also... just much newer.
next....
Still haven't heard a definitive, "yes, it's better than the ALR-94". Is that a "yes"?
SpudmanWP said:The F-35 has an ESM from BAE also... just much newer.
next....
SpudmanWP said:Since ESMs are one of the most hush-hush of capabilities, we are not likely ever to get a straight answer.
However, we can make some common sense conclusions based on available public information:
1. The ASQ-239 is decades newer than the ALR-94 and even got a hardware upgrade with Tech Refresh2 (Block 3i)
SpudmanWP said:2. The APG-81 is directly connected to the ASQ-239 and acts as part of the ESM in both passive & active modes.
SpudmanWP said:No public info states the APG-77 is connected or functions in concert with the ALR-94.
sferrin said:It also brings up the question of antenna quantity, size, and location for the two systems (ALR-94 and ASQ-239).
quellish said:sferrin said:It also brings up the question of antenna quantity, size, and location for the two systems (ALR-94 and ASQ-239).
APG-77 and ALR-94 both have (some) internal design features (related to what is mentioned here) that are far more advanced and sensitive than what is used in the F-35, etc. For example, imagine that all of the internals, from the antenna on back to the power source, are completely RF noise free. That is a very big deal.
quellish said:APG-77 and ALR-94 both have (some) internal design features (related to what is mentioned here) that are far more advanced and sensitive than what is used in the , etc. For example, imagine that all of the internals, from the antenna on back to the power source, are completely RF noise free. That is a very big deal.
SpudmanWP said:So given that NG & BAE had the experience, know-how, and capability to produce "noise-free" systems... they decided to not do that F-35 10+ years after they did it in the F-22?
Sorry, not buying it.
quellish said:sferrin said:It also brings up the question of antenna quantity, size, and location for the two systems (ALR-94 and ASQ-239).
APG-77 and ALR-94 both have (some) internal design features (related to what is mentioned here) that are far more advanced and sensitive than what is used in the F-35, etc. For example, imagine that all of the internals, from the antenna on back to the power source, are completely RF noise free. That is a very big deal.
As far as ESM, if you consider the B-2 as the gold standard, the F-22 fits ~90% of that capability into a much smaller and more efficient package.
Flyaway said:quellish said:sferrin said:It also brings up the question of antenna quantity, size, and location for the two systems (ALR-94 and ASQ-239).
APG-77 and ALR-94 both have (some) internal design features (related to what is mentioned here) that are far more advanced and sensitive than what is used in the F-35, etc. For example, imagine that all of the internals, from the antenna on back to the power source, are completely RF noise free. That is a very big deal.
As far as ESM, if you consider the B-2 as the gold standard, the F-22 fits ~90% of that capability into a much smaller and more efficient package.
It should be noted that this may not apply to Israeli F-35s where they seem to use as much of their own indigenous avonics as possible.
The thing about the F-22 is it's a really good air superiority fighter and that's it, any other functionality has had to be shoehorned into it & therefore it isn't going to be as good at these tasks. Unlike the F-35 that was designed from the outset as a true multi-role aircraft.
quellish said:Why would someone assume the requirements are the same, or even similar?
Airplane said:Back on point, you guys are ridiculous in your cries to not allow 1 or 2 key allies to be sold the F-22 because of all it's 25yo secret technology, but don't give a damn that a plane more advanced in probably every technical manner (except performance charts!) is being sold to countries all over the globe.
SpudmanWP said:Because the F-35 depends even more on not getting detected for it's survival since it's radar is smaller than the F-22's and the F-22 is faster.
Steve Pace said:The answer to all of this is "full-speed ahead" on the NGAD fighter. -SP
DrRansom said:Which leads to the next question, should NGAD have a two-man strike fighter variant, to do forward drone control / EA?
sferrin said:No. For all the same reasons the F-22 and F-35 didn't get one - $$$$$$$$$$$
DrRansom said:sferrin said:No. For all the same reasons the F-22 and F-35 didn't get one - $$$$$$$$$$$
What's more expensive? Adding a electronics officer or the multi-decade software development project to replicate that electronics officer? Advanced software developing is proving to be very hard and very expensive...
Triton said:How does the United States Air Force deter "aggression" from the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China between now and the development of a sixth-generation fighter aircraft? Do we put more money into upgrading and extending the service life of the F-15 fleet?
sferrin said:Buy more Growlers.
DrRansom said:Restarting the F-22 just makes the USAF TACAIR dependent upon protecting tanker lines.Steve Pace said:The answer to all of this is "full-speed ahead" on the NGAD fighter. -SP
Flyaway said:It should be noted that this may not apply to Israeli F-35s where they seem to use as much of their own indigenous avonics as possible.
DrRansom said:For the foreseeable future? Something low-observable will have to replace the Growlers.
Triton said:How does the United States Air Force deter "aggression" from the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China between now and the development of a sixth-generation fighter aircraft? Do we put more money into upgrading and extending the service life of the F-15 fleet?
What if the Philippines invites the United States Air Force back to Clark Air Base? The Philippines is allowing the United States Navy to use the facilities of Subic Bay again. What if other nations in the Pacific region currently engaged in territorial disputes with the People's Republic of China allow land basing of United States aircraft? Does the United States Air Force have a tanking problem then?
Do we presume that funding levels will remain the same with the next Presidential Administration?
On the F-22, I know there has been some discussion about a restart on the F-22 and we just stand ready to support with whatever information we are asked to provide.
You are probably aware that the tooling does still exist, and so there will be -- as most programs, if you start one from a cold start
I am sure that they really want to understand the cost associated with a cold start.
But at the same time you wouldn't want to build the same aircraft, so you will do some upgrades to that aircraft, modernize it and some of the design --
incorporate some of the things that we have learned through F-35 and other programs that you can incorporate into that. So we will stand ready to support that.
Colonial-Marine said:Personally I think the USAF should be a bit more open to the idea of restarting production of an improved F-22. I have little confidence in the notion that F-XX or NGAD or whatever they are calling it now will be on-time like the USAF wants. When they can't even bring themselves to call it a fighter and resort to all sorts of technobabble I'm already a bit concerned. Considering the leadership deficit in Washington they ought to take a shot at what they could get sooner rather than later.
Flyaway said:What struck me was how smartly it turned that corner compared to the F-15 following it.
TomS said:Flyaway said:What struck me was how smartly it turned that corner compared to the F-15 following it.
Yeah, he looked like he was having trouble keeping up.