Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 172324252627
Results 781 to 788 of 788

Thread: USAF not F-35 thread

  1. #781
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,017
    The currently funded $billion+ dollar programs will take the NG propulsion to TRL-6+ by early next decade. Further risk reduction could be performed if they incorporate more advanced prototype flight testing (that is an option built into the AETP). That is from what we know. On the AII-X's non propulsion side we do not know where a lot of the technology currently sits but I wouldn't be surprised if a heck of a lot of stuff was or will be matured by other programs leaving the PCA with an integration challenge as opposed to a technology development challenge (same thing with the B-21).

    It isn't like they aren't aware of the cutting edge sensor technologies or aren't invested in it themselves. The US is funding some of the most extensive research and acquisition of GaN systems at a very substantial scale and pace. Whether that is new family of sensors on the AEGIS combat system, upgrading other Ballistic missile defense applications, high power jammer systems or developing the Next Generation of long range ground based surveillance radars and large airborne sensors. The sensor modernization, and semiconductor material S&T and R&D pipeline is pretty robust. In many instances this is being done by the same organizations (services) or industry partners (companies) that are going to be tasked with developing the PCA or other advanced systems.

    http://defenseinnovationmarketplace....D-20160224.pdf
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 20th March 2017 at 13:59.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #782
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    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.
    Cost also. With a lot of different platforms now in need of radar fielding a high level of specific performance, photonics technologies will cut the cost of development and adaptation. You'll have a more robust architecture than can be arranged without the need to costly customized signal amplifiers for example.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 20th March 2017 at 20:43.

  3. #783
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,356
    LM reject T-50 for OA-X but some hints suggest a rotary airframe

    Instead, the company is still weighing its options, with [Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of Lockheed’s aeronautics business] hinting that a solution may come not from the fixed-wing side of the company but rather from its rotary and mission systems business.
    Source:
    DefenseNews.com

  4. #784
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    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


    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.
    No one says there that they would have to be back to pre-stealth aircraft, just that actually the rate of advancement of radar technologies are actually superior than the ones of stealth and that sacrificing even more aircraft performances (because at the moment a multiband VLO plane would mean just a flying wing) trying to match them seems me just a recipe for troubles and a lot of money of time wasted.

    The photonic radar other great advantage is that it is software defined, meaning the band of emission can change at will spanning from low band to millimeters one in just one fitting, that would even be lighter than actuals.

    IMHO the point of maximum technological/tactical advantage of VLO technologies is even actually being trespassed and it would further deteriorate as time passes by.
    So, I sincerely hope that the programs that FBW are listings would take a whole different road to the first anticipation they send out but I still am quite worried they are starting from a wrong assumption i.e. trying to keep a level of advantage over competitors that the stealth once granted them 'cause an initial complete lack of efforts from their adversaries on that field.
    Now, there is not any new technologies that are not actively pursued by competitors also, so the relatively advantages would be just relative, as it usually was before the case in question.

  5. #785
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    37
    (because at the moment a multiband VLO plane would mean just a flying wing)
    Flying wings are very aerodynamically efficient in cruise though and therefore a desirable planform for any design that requires range or endurance; Flying wing designs have been pursued since before the advent of jet engines let alone VLO requirements.

    It's not really much of a disadvantage for Strike, ISR/SEAD, strategic bombers or support aircraft to use a flying wing design with the advent of FBW.

    Also wouldn't a fighter sized low band radar be extremely limited due to it's small size?

  6. #786
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    No one says there that they would have to be back to pre-stealth aircraft, just that actually the rate of advancement of radar technologies are actually superior than the ones of stealth and that sacrificing even more aircraft performances (because at the moment a multiband VLO plane would mean just a flying wing) trying to match them seems me just a recipe for troubles and a lot of money of time wasted.

    The photonic radar other great advantage is that it is software defined, meaning the band of emission can change at will spanning from low band to millimeters one in just one fitting, that would even be lighter than actuals.

    IMHO the point of maximum technological/tactical advantage of VLO technologies is even actually being trespassed and it would further deteriorate as time passes by.
    So, I sincerely hope that the programs that FBW are listings would take a whole different road to the first anticipation they send out but I still am quite worried they are starting from a wrong assumption i.e. trying to keep a level of advantage over competitors that the stealth once granted them 'cause an initial complete lack of efforts from their adversaries on that field.
    Now, there is not any new technologies that are not actively pursued by competitors also, so the relatively advantages would be just relative, as it usually was before the case in question.
    I think advancements in RADAR tech are going to hurt non-VLO fighters more than 5th-gen because the low frequency RADARs that are most effective against VLO are physically large (easier to fix and engage kinetically), while also operating in thin spectrum that is relatively easy to bury in noise.

    VHF is 30-300 Mhz compared to X-band at 8-12 Ghz. To raise the noise floor to the same level in both bands, you would need to pump out nearly 15 times the energy for X-band than you would for VHF. Also note that building antennas and transmitters capable of operating in the whole VHF band is massively more difficult than doing the same for X-band. A full VHF band antenna would have a fractional bandwidth of ~1.6 vs 0.4 for X-band, so it is unlikely for a VHF radar to be able to operate in the entire 30-300 Mhz spectrum. A closer comparison would be a VHF AESA that can use 200-300 Mhz vs an X-band radar that uses 8-12 Ghz. In that example, the VHF radar can be jammed with 1/40th the power output you would need for the X-band. If the tech exists for a VHF radar to operate in a wider slice of spectrum, then the tech also exists for a radar that can use the C, X, and Ku bands at the same time.

    I think current technology is already sufficient to build a SAM battery with a large X band AESA that would have no problem seeing legacy non-VLO jets at significant range even if they are supported by massive ECM. While VLO jets will undoubtedly need EW to defeat the IADS of the future, legacy jets may be absolutely unsurvivable with such support.

  7. #787
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by CastleBravo View Post
    I think advancements in RADAR tech are going to hurt non-VLO fighters more than 5th-gen because the low frequency RADARs that are most effective against VLO are physically large (easier to fix and engage kinetically), while also operating in thin spectrum that is relatively easy to bury in noise.

    VHF is 30-300 Mhz compared to X-band at 8-12 Ghz. To raise the noise floor to the same level in both bands, you would need to pump out nearly 15 times the energy for X-band than you would for VHF. Also note that building antennas and transmitters capable of operating in the whole VHF band is massively more difficult than doing the same for X-band. A full VHF band antenna would have a fractional bandwidth of ~1.6 vs 0.4 for X-band, so it is unlikely for a VHF radar to be able to operate in the entire 30-300 Mhz spectrum. A closer comparison would be a VHF AESA that can use 200-300 Mhz vs an X-band radar that uses 8-12 Ghz. In that example, the VHF radar can be jammed with 1/40th the power output you would need for the X-band. If the tech exists for a VHF radar to operate in a wider slice of spectrum, then the tech also exists for a radar that can use the C, X, and Ku bands at the same time.

    I think current technology is already sufficient to build a SAM battery with a large X band AESA that would have no problem seeing legacy non-VLO jets at significant range even if they are supported by massive ECM. While VLO jets will undoubtedly need EW to defeat the IADS of the future, legacy jets may be absolutely unsurvivable with such support.
    100% agreed there, in the sense that no one around plans to introduce or keep in service for more than a few years in wait for a replacement a plane that has not some serious RCS reduction features (i.e. something like SH, Rafale-D, Su-35S).
    What I was contesting is not the VLO in se but the sort of intention than I see underlined but in some cases also clearly expressed, in some US programs to try to replicate the, repeat again, absolute technological advantage the stealth once gave them.
    Now the genie is going back in the bottle i.e. also the others are introducing advanced VLO planes and there is not any more bottle around i.e. not any new technological advancements others can't cope in a reasonable length of time.
    So, if the PCA program would evolve in the realistical sense of explore ways to cope with advanced AD defence be absolutely my guest, if is an attempt to design some sort of wunderwaffe in the hope to replicate an one in a lifetime exceptionally favourable condition, I fear they would hit a very thick and hard wall.

  8. #788
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    100% agreed there, in the sense that no one around plans to introduce or keep in service for more than a few years in wait for a replacement a plane that has not some serious RCS reduction features (i.e. something like SH, Rafale-D, Su-35S).
    What I was contesting is not the VLO in se but the sort of intention than I see underlined but in some cases also clearly expressed, in some US programs to try to replicate the, repeat again, absolute technological advantage the stealth once gave them.
    Now the genie is going back in the bottle i.e. also the others are introducing advanced VLO planes and there is not any more bottle around i.e. not any new technological advancements others can't cope in a reasonable length of time.
    So, if the PCA program would evolve in the realistical sense of explore ways to cope with advanced AD defence be absolutely my guest, if is an attempt to design some sort of wunderwaffe in the hope to replicate an one in a lifetime exceptionally favourable condition, I fear they would hit a very thick and hard wall.
    That is one way to look at it. Another is to consider that the advantage an IADS with double-digit SAMs has against fourth-generation aircraft may never be replicated again in the age of VLO aircraft since any further advances in RF tech will improve EW just as much as RADAR. Even if VLO tech has reached maturity, and there isn't much improvement left to be had, its introduction has IMO changed the balance of power between aircraft and air defense for the foreseeable future. The way I see it, it's other nations who made a bad bet on their IADS wunderwaffe, and will now need decades of massive investment to catch up. That said, we can't just sit on our butts and allow everyone else to match our capabilities if we want to maintain an advantage.

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