Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 26 of 34 FirstFirst ... 16222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 780 of 1017

Thread: USAF not F-35 thread

  1. #751
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    The side arrays are still quite unnecessary, mostly useful for SAR but f-22 isn't really A2G oriented. So it is easy to understand why they cut it to reduce cost
    The IRST would be a good add on with the amount of stealth platform in the future
    The point being though, that if money was not an issue, they would have kept it on.

  2. #752
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,159
    Israël négocie l’achat de F-15 « Silent Eagle »
    http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/...le-863248.html

    Israël désire effectuer une évaluation de la version avancée du F-15, soit le « Silent Eagle » et ceci avant de procéder à toute nouvelle commande de F-35.
    Israel want to evaluate the advanced version of F-15, aka "Silent Eagle" before any further F-35 order.

  3. #753
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    They have had plans to buy the F-15 using the US aid for some time now. The additional F-35's will be on top of that. What will be unlikely are more F-16Is in the future. The additional 17 they have committed to have upped their total F-35 I count to 50. They should be able to build an F-35 I fleet of between 75-100 F-35 Is in my opinion that would operate alongside the F-16 SUFAs. That leaves quite a few F-15's that do not yet have a replacement. It would be interesting to see how Boeing prices out the F-15s..I see them operating Advanced Strike Eagles, F-35 and F-16 Is along with a much larger unmanned component.

    https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 16:42.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  4. #754
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/...le-863248.html



    Israel want to evaluate the advanced version of F-15, aka "Silent Eagle" before any further F-35 order.
    More as in Advanced Eagle, not Silent Eagle.
    Think F-15SA, but with a few different tweaks. Different radar etc
    Thanks

  5. #755
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    They are likely to go with the AN/APG-82 offered to South Korea and fitted on the USAF F-15Es. DEWS would probably give way to the Israeli Electronic Warfare suite and other indigenous avionics components..plus nearly the full spectrum of their indigenous weapons.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  6. #756
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    It's more an incentive for their industry. The kind of story like yesterday Sa5 (?) falling down on Israeli territory will certainly blow some cold into that.
    But notice that Pr Trump nominated a former Boeing CEO.

  7. #757
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    It's more an incentive for their industry. The kind of story like yesterday Sa5 (?) falling down on Israeli territory will certainly blow some cold into that.
    But notice that Pr Trump nominated a former Boeing CEO.
    . The IDF's interest in acquiring new F-15's has been talked about for some time. Since they are unlikely to buy any new F-16s, and the have firmed up 50 F-35s that will continue to be delivered till 2024, it leaves an advanced F-15 coupled with upgrades to their current I's as an option. This was being talked about as they were negotiating their Military Aid deal last year. I also expect them to order additional 15-20 F-35Is for deliveries in the 2024-2030 time-frame. But that will come a few years down the road.

    http://www.jpost.com/International/I...-F-15-purchase
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 19th March 2017 at 00:05.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  8. #758
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    876
    Is there an Israel Af thread or a Lockheed/US export threat ? (Not being snarky)

  9. #759
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Yes, shaping is for the most part targeting the X-band, but no removing the tail is not "stealthy in any frequency band." When you are talking about the sorts of very low frequency radars that are frequently advertised as having counter-stealth capabilities the entire aircraft effectively resonates. In theory a very large aircraft like a B-2 might be able to shaping effectively in those bands but it won't work for a fighter.




    That makes an awful lot of assumptions... the first being that whatever the USAF decides on for its 6th Gen design is more or less a fighter as we know it today and the second that greater stealth would be the principal goal of the design.

    A 6th gen design might be quite large for instance... optimized for endurance and perhaps armed with laser weapons that make traditional maneuverability irrelevant. It will also likely take a system of systems approach, where it will act in concert with drones of various types, etc, potentially freeing it of the need to venture directly into the most heavily defended areas.

    This is why they take so long studying the problem before launching a program.
    That is a sophisticated way to say that they have not a damn clue about it...
    Or better said that their supposed prime requisite, i.e. a fighter plane that is stealthy in about all RF specter is a contradiction of terms as it would need a flying wing configuration.
    Also because a whole load of breakthrough new radar technologies is about to hit the markets soon, so that end line will surely be put further away a lot in the meantime...

  10. #760
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Air Force seeks proposals for light-attack experiment that could feed rapid acquisition program


    The Air Force on Friday released a series of documents detailing its plans for a light-attack aircraft experiment this summer that could field a rapid acquisition program to buy around 300 light-attack jets to supplement the service's fighter fleet.

    The capability assessment will be managed by the Air Force's office of strategic development planning and experimentation (SDPE). According to an invitation to participate posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website March 17, the service may use rapid acquisition authorities provided through the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act to buy the jets.

    "Because of the rapid time lines associated with these authorities, SDPE is conducting this capability assessment as part of its market research to determine whether any non-developmental, light-attack aircraft are available to meet these needs and within the aggressive time lines of these authorities," the document states. "As such, the results of this experimentation campaign will inform future requirements and acquisition decisions, which may or may not lead to one or more defense acquisition programs."

    The service will choose up to four respondents to bring one or two non-developmental aircraft to a four-to-six-week assessment at Holloman Air Force Base, NM. Air Force crews will fly the jets to demonstrate basic performance as well as the aircraft's weapons, sensors, communications systems and ability to operate in austere conditions. The assessment could lead to other experiments, demonstrations or prototype efforts, the document states.

    Notional requirements for participating jets include the ability to perform light-attack missions and targeting and reconnaissance functions. The aircraft must also be able to support an operations tempo of 900 flight hours per year for 10 years and have a 90 percent mission capable rate for day and night missions. Qualifying jets need to be able to take off using a maximum runway length of 6,000 feet and must have a number of tactical communication and range and endurance capabilities.

    The current plan is to conduct 13 mission sorties, one ground event and three other events that could be accomplished as dedicated sorties or worked into planned mission sorties. Sorties include medium-altitude close-air support, an austere field demo and precision-munition basic surface attack. The service is still determining which weapons will be employed as part of the capability assessments, but current candidates include: GBU-12 or GBU inert, BDU-33, RR-170, .50 caliber ammunition, Mk-82 HD, M-206 flares, 70mm Hydra and Mk-81/82.


    Among the information the service is requesting from industry is an explanation of the integration and development cost and timeline. The service also asks companies to describe whether production lots could be structured in 40- to 50-jet lots to be delivered within six years of a production decision.

    The service doesn't state when it will select participants -- responses to the initial invitation are due April 7 -- nor does it detail how much funding will be provided.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  11. #761
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Light jets?

    If "Inside Defense" is right the AT-6, the Tucano, the Bronco and the IOMAX are out.
    That leaves the Scorpion, the light attack version of the M346 and the KAI FA-50 (of course that with this last one, one might ask "why dont we just buy 300 more Vipers").

  12. #762
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Light jets?

    If "Inside Defense" is right the AT-6, the Tucano, the Bronco and the IOMAX are out.
    That leaves the Scorpion, the light attack version of the M346 and the KAI FA-50 (of course that with this last one, one might ask "why dont we just buy 300 more Vipers").
    Do you base that on their use of the word "jets"? If so that is likely not used in the literal sense. Anyhow, below is the notional requirements document provided to industry on Friday. Scorpion definitely looks strong here as long as it can sling a gun pod [ Edit: They have looked into this and it can indeed carry a gun pod].

    The jet can also host a gun pod, either of the 50 caliber or 20mm kind, although Anderson echoed the belief held by Air Force officials that the future of CAS is not a gun, but rather precision munitions.

    "I don't know if you'd consider a gun the best weapon for modern CAS because guns, by their nature, are aerial weapons," Anderson said. "But if the ground commander wants a platform with a gun on it, we can host a gun. It's really dictated by the nature of the operation and the threat we're trying to engage."
    https://www.scribd.com/document/3423...k-Requirements

    Also, the demonstration definitions

    https://www.scribd.com/document/3423...on-Definitions

    Last edited by bring_it_on; 19th March 2017 at 14:25.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #763
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    That is a sophisticated way to say that they have not a damn clue about it
    They know about low frequency radar since WW II. There were some serious effort of using it against submarine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Or better said that their supposed prime requisite, i.e. a fighter plane that is stealthy in about all RF specter is a contradiction of terms as it would need a flying wing configuration.
    Also because a whole load of breakthrough new radar technologies is about to hit the markets soon, so that end line will surely be put further away a lot in the meantime...
    Or may be not since LM claims their RAM works at low frequency anyway. "Stealth" is also hard to define, what values of RCS at low frequency should the aircraft have to be considered stealth?.

  14. #764
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post


    Or may be not since LM claims their RAM works at low frequency anyway. "Stealth" is also hard to define, what values of RCS at low frequency should the aircraft have to be considered stealth?.
    What we have are patents acquired by Lockheed through ANS and their work all dating to work conducted in the 2000s or earlier. One such patent is here -

    https://www.scribd.com/document/3420...Zcwif9DBYAGLHg

    We do not have much idea on Boeing's and Northrop Grumman's (both B-21/LRS-B primes) work in this area. Needless to say, the tens of Billions that has and will be spent over the next 4-8 years to develop technologies for the B-21 will significantly advance the needle in many areas.

    A notional 2030+ fighter project will likely leverage work advanced on 5th generation fighters (some of which may already be using some of this technology), B-21, other advanced programs and whatever is developed specifically for it.

    As Trump's FY17 supplemental asks for a very significant increase (see my post on the last page) in Next generation fighter funding compared to the baseline it appears clearer now that they want some prototyping and technology development work to go alongside the academic work that generally happens during the AOA phase. This is obviously not out of the blue as we have the highest ranking officials even in the previous administration wanting to introduce prototype and technology development funding for a future fighter earlier so that de-risking could begin earlier to shave development time.



    As I have been documenting in the dedicated 6th generation thread, DARPA's Aerospace Projects Office is leading the effort through partnership with USAF and USN labs and program offices. Harry Berman is currently the point man for the DARPA program which has been largely funded through their classified budget and the effort now appears to be getting some non-classified increase in funding as well which suggests some more serious development and prototyping effort will follow. This isn't unexpected..if you want a PCA in the 2030s you have to have tech demonstrators or something to that end in the air by the early 2020s.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 19th March 2017 at 17:11.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  15. #765
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    190
    Is the B-21 going to have AMRAAM capability?

  16. #766
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    Back to the Scorpion, let's spin it off a bit:
    Another Scorpion
    Name:  tumblr_ocwlsuCEez1vdh2vwo1_1280.jpg
Views: 280
Size:  51.4 KB
    Imagine with APKWS

  17. #767
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    They know about low frequency radar since WW II. There were some serious effort of using it against submarine.


    Or may be not since LM claims their RAM works at low frequency anyway. "Stealth" is also hard to define, what values of RCS at low frequency should the aircraft have to be considered stealth?.
    Excuse me, it was not a years long mantra of hardcore supporters of 5 gen planes that stealth was about shaping first, after this about more shaping and both of them followed by shaping again...now it only takes a pixie dust RAM coatings to solve everything?

    For the rest the problem of multi band stealth lies exactly there :stealth level is dependent from performances, if you need a XXI century F-117 equivalent to get it is better to quit program immediately
    My impression is that they know what they want in terms of requisites but have not actually any clue how to satisfy them all together as they are self contradictory one with the other.
    So they have started this wide array search hoping to gather the diverse technological breakthroughs they need to get what they want.
    Good luck with that... Very good one...

  18. #768
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Yes 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.
    Last edited by FBW; 19th March 2017 at 23:30.

  19. #769
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,387
    both radar and missiles are getting compact. progress is very visible like tablet pcs. on otherhand the so called stealth planes are draggier and heavier need larger noiser engines. plus practically zero progress in aerodynamics. computers can easily predict the performance while missiles hide in tube no one knows real ranges and speed unless export client confirm it.



  20. #770
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,575
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Yes 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.
    I think folks just need to go back and get a good book on the ATF program and see how this process evolves at this stage and when they begin to narrow down and start concentrating their investments on the enabling technologies. Unlike the ATF however they are going to have to piggy back on a lot of work performed on some fairly large programs that will be relevant to what shape or form the PCA takes. Whether that is in the fields of signature, autonomy, apertures, payloads, networking etc etc. That they are now looking to increase funding substantially suggests that what has likely come out of the enterprise study can now be channeled into advanced prototyping and other such efforts. The APO was formed a little over 2 years ago with the primary focus being just that.



    The AII includes a new program, AII-X, tasked with designing and demonstrating advanced aircraft technologies. The AII-X program is being led by DARPA, and the APO is its home.

    It actually came out of a fairly high level interaction between the top bosses at DARPA, USAF and USN with each services both using DARPA as a vehicle for technology development and using its work to spin off their own S&T investments. With the approach of moving the technology maturation to the left of the program-cycle now being actively encouraged and practiced we could well be poised for AOA completion in 2018 and Milestone-A by 2020-21 time-period. This could mean that there are X planes in the air by the early 2020s for a PDR/M-B down select around the middle of the next decade. That they have piped in a $1 Billion into propulsion, and are committing a further Billion into the AII-X doesn't appear to suggest that they don't yet know (in the classified) which technologies to pursue and develop. You wouldn't know what you develop or chart for development actually makes its way until much later but that is not what they do at this stage anyway.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  21. #771
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Excuse me, it was not a years long mantra of hardcore supporters of 5 gen planes that stealth was about shaping first, after this about more shaping and both of them followed by shaping again...now it only takes a pixie dust RAM coatings to solve everything?
    Who say the shaping of 5 gen fighter isn't already adapted to reduce aircraft RCS at low frequency ?
    One major visible break through is the change from full facet on F-117 to blended facets on B-2 , F-22 , F-35 which already help reduce RCS at low frequency because they will cause less surface scattering.That is just what you can see on surface, there are internal structures that help reduce RCS by internal cancellation too.Now add in the effect of RAM that has extremely bandwidth.
    Btw, there is actual patent from LM for the wide band RAM so they are far from being pixie dust.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Good luck with that... Very good one...
    Given decades research and billions dollars budget, i doubt that they need luck
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 20th March 2017 at 01:54.

  22. #772
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    ...now it only takes a pixie dust RAM coatings to solve everything?

    ..
    Exactly. This stuff is not magic.
    But some people think that its as easy as putting a an extra coat of RAM on a hot spot.

    In another thread recently, a poster assumed that a certain new 5th gen plane in development was as unstealthy as a 4th gen because it didnt have the "ram" yet

  23. #773
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    . There is no scenario where being easier to detect is an advantage.
    There is a scenario where maintenance of stealth coatings could result in lethal downtime for an aircraft. 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

  24. #774
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post
    Btw, there is actual patent from LM for the wide band RAM so they are far from being pixie dust.
    There was the F117 crash in Serbia and the stealthy helicopter crash in Pakistan in 2011. Im forgetting one more but im just sayin, this stuff is getting around a bit

  25. #775
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    There was the F117 crash in Serbia and the stealthy helicopter crash in Pakistan in 2011. Im forgetting one more but im just sayin, this stuff is getting around a bit
    there are thousands different kind of RAM. For example: The RAM used on F-117 is ironball which is very different from Fibermat on F-35. SAM and Radar and fighters get passed around alot too, USA themselves has several S-300 batterries and some Su-27 for testing purpose
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    Exactly. This stuff is not magic.
    Low frequency is not magic either
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 20th March 2017 at 02:54.

  26. #776
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,387
    Quote Originally Posted by mig-31bm View Post

    Given decades research and billions dollars budget, i doubt that they need luck
    Airdefence manufacturer spent even more than aircraft manufacturer. Just look at size of factories. Aircraft manufacturing is very labor intensive process . Adding billions does not add to capability. Look Boeing 787/777 it need external Russian help to achieve may be 20% efficiency. Spent same amount on airdefence missile and you get 1000% improvement and those very visible example. Effectiveness of R&D start from education system and centralized continuous leadership.

  27. #777
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Yes 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.
    About the first part, I can only tell you also in all seriousness that I and the so called Sputnik have not any relationship of sort, for the rest I know you were joking as soon as you has not even taken the time of reading my post and so to not mistook what I said about F-117 (or B-2, or X-47) FLIGHT PERFORMANCES with its own level of stealth (that's is still better than the ones of F-22 and F-35, it seems).

    So, please let's get a look what are being said in this same forum about GaN AESA, Photonic Radar and Software defined radio emission to get just a glimpse to what will be introduced in the field of radars in the next 5-10 years instead of basing yourself just on LM, Boeing and/or Raytheon advertising brochures please (joking as well).

    For the second part you are confirming exactly what I have said: they have a precise idea of where they want to arrive (and that IMHO is just deadly wrong the same) but they have nothing other than vague clues of what they would need to get there.
    You know, when you have not even the idea of not just the speed or the cost but even of the size or the same general form it will have it means you are not even started , so according of what you say we just know it would be LO and it will fly, all the rest is still in the mind of God.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 20th March 2017 at 08:49.

  28. #778
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB View Post
    There 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.
    http://www.f117sfa.org/f117_history.htm

  29. #779
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    About the first part, I can only tell you also in all seriousness that I and the so called Sputnik have not any relationship of sort, for the rest I know you were joking as soon as you has not even taken the time of reading my post and so to not mistook what I said about F-117 (or B-2, or X-47) FLIGHT PERFORMANCES with its own level of stealth (that's is still better than the ones of F-22 and F-35, it seems).
    I read it, hence my reply. Advances in radar technology don't negate the requirement for RF low observability, there is no magic wand that would make detection assured (or RF stealth assured for that matter).

    , please let's get a look what are being said in this same forum about GaN AESA, Photonic Radar and Software defined radio emission to get just a glimpse to what will be introduced in the field of radars in the next 5-10 years instead of basing yourself just on LM, Boeing and/or Raytheon advertising brochures please (joking as well).
    We have all read about the development of GaN TRM technology, low frequency radar, etc. Speaking of advertising brochures, the detection ranges and sensitivity are based on ideal scenarios. Photonic radar has just been proven feasible in prototype form. That is a long way from becoming a weaponized, fielded system. GaN is also not some magical material. According to the director of one of the industry leading foundries (link in AESA thread), the GaN on SiC wafer TRM technology offers about 50% greater detection range based on then fielded GaA modules (not the outlandish numbers claimed by some). Newer GaA on SiC TRM have improved the power of current AESA, the currently fielded technology has not stood still while the industry transitions to GaN.

    A lot of these defense articles and assumptions on this forum are based on certain fallacies:

    1. RF low observability attempt to make the aircraft "invisible". This was the result of the ill-informed press articles post- desert storm. The goal is to reduce detection range, shrink the engagement zone (therefore reaction time), break the kill chain.
    2. "stealth" relies on RF and IR low observability alone; not true since the F-117 retired. Current aircraft have sophisticated threat detection IDAS (AN/ALR-94, AN/ASQ-239, etc.) The pilot is show the signal strength, optimal flight path, probably detection range, threat I.D. within the threat database. These aircraft carry countermeasures, even towed decoys in the case of the F-35. They have EA capability (we know the APG-77, APG-81 have x-band jamming, what isn't open source is the full spectrum of capability provided by former and latter systems).
    3. Radar advances will yield diminishing returns for LO. To a degree this is true, there is a limit to how cost, physics, aerodynamics will interplay in the drive to lower detection ranges. The error is assuming that radars operate in a vaccum of perfect atmospheric and combat environment conditions. It isn't just a flight of LO aircraft vs. an advanced phased array and SAMs. Radar has to deal with real atmospheric conditions, a degraded electronic environment, decoys, EA assets, stand-off missiles attempting to break the kill chain.


    For the second part you are confirming exactly what I have said: they have a precise idea of where they want to arrive (and that IMHO is just deadly wrong the same) but they have nothing other than vague clues of what they would need to get there.
    You know, when you have not even the idea of not just the speed or the cost but even of the size or the same general form it will have it means you are not even started , so according of what you say we just know it would be LO and it will fly, all the rest is still in the mind of God.
    I think you misunderstood what I was saying here. The PCA timeline suggests the program will be using relatively mature technology, TRL level 4 or 5 (even 6 in the case of the engine technology), and leveraging technology from the B-21.

    There are design trade-offs: sizing, fuel fraction/range, L/D wetted area trade-offs, payload, airfoil and maneuverability, and of course LO considerations (short list). Finding the sweet spot in these design trade-offs is impacted by capability, cost, time.
    The USAF knows it wants greater range, speed persistence. Hence the AETP and ADVENT engine programs. At this stage, both GE and P&W are in the process of developing the engine that will power future designs (and possibly current). As the process goes forward, the specification (one engine vs two, scale up or down the 45,000 lb thrust class planned for AETP technology, etc will be set.
    The requirement for maneuverability will be based on the assessment of PCA study in 2017. The USAF had an AOA study in 2010 for a new air superiority aircraft, and will proceed with the PCA analysis of alternatives this year. It may end up requiring a very agile platform, which would impact LO considerations, size, fuel fraction, on and on. They may decide that having a 9g platform is less important for the air dominance mission compared to speed, LO, range. That is why they are doing the study.

    In other words, none of this is in "the mind of god". They've done previous AOA under NGAD, they've started the engine program, they are embarking on the current PCA AOA. You can be assured they have a good idea of what capabilities they want. The question will be what emerges from the design trade-offs and what can be accomplished within the budget and time frame.

    You can search back in this thread and in B-I-O's "rise of the sixth generation fighter" thread for what the USAF has been saying, and especially about the adaptive engine technology. They are not starting with a blank sheet of paper.
    Last edited by FBW; 20th March 2017 at 14:48.

  30. #780
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    F-117 (or B-2, or X-47) FLIGHT PERFORMANCES with its own level of stealth (that's is still better than the ones of F-22 and F-35, it seems)
    AFAIK, according to USAF both F-35 and F-22 have better stealth than F-117.
    CNT RAM aside their shape should still deal with low band better since they have fewer sharp edges.
    Moreover, there are better edge treatment new stealth platform

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    So, please let's get a look what are being said in this same forum about GaN AESA, Photonic Radar and Software defined radio emission to get just a glimpse to what will be introduced in the field of radars in the next 5-10 years
    Regarding photonic radar, according to what said in these 2 articles
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13078.html
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/a...e-radar-system
    in photonic system you can reduce internal noise of the system by 10 times ( 10 dB ) because analog hardware components such as mixers, amplifiers are replaced by two optical resonant mode-locked laser and a photodiode sensor, thus detection range will increase. While that no doubt very good , it is no where from a counter stealth system with face recognizition from 500 km aways like some journalists claimed. Personally, i see it as similar to the change from PESA to AESA ( rely on reduce internal noise for better detection range ).
    On the otherhand, GaN rely on better transmitting power for range improvement.
    With both photonics and GaN , radar detection range will certainly improved alot. However, i don't see those technology as the death to stealth. In fact, they make stealth become even more important given that technologies like GaN can easily be implemented on jammers which synergy signifiantly better with a low RCS assets. Longer radar detection range also help stealth aircraft deal with threat from optical sensor much easier.
    Last edited by garryA; 20th March 2017 at 13:31.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES