F-35 status (in BMS) request
-
This post is deleted! -
hmm… IMHO original falcon 4.0 has this feature already - simple avionics!
-
It is that fast. Actively scanned arrays (The only kind which can do simultaneous AA/AG) form multiple beams independent of each other. Where one looks has no bearing whatsoever on any of the other beams. Meaning it can simultaneously view the entire FOV of the dish. While several beams are tracking, several other elements continue to scan as fast as the dedicated radar processor can shift the phases to steer the beams. The fact that it takes 2 seconds for the FCR display to update simulates the effect of the beam steering process in a “scanning” mode, which takes far less than 2 seconds. If it were not more effective and more efficient than a typical Passive array, it would not be worth the extremely high cost to upgrade nearly every aircraft in the world to an AESA. Which implies the dish can perform the full gambit scan in less than 2 seconds. It takes microseconds to form a beam, and having multiple elements means you can transmit with one and immediately move on to the next beam phase, while concurrently tuning a different element to listen for the return. Granted, there are some dishes more effective than others, due to an increased number of elements. But the fact remains, you can simulate the effects of the technology under the current system, which was the original question.
it does so in range “layers” as individual transmitters alone can project little power, but together can project much more.
at the long ranges, all of the transmitters would be used to project all of the power of the radar, but at shorter ranges the transmitters can divide up the FOV to track and aquire targets.
it still does take time though.the biggest advantages are for ground mapping, where the transmitters can scan the ground concurrently.
-
It is that fast. Actively scanned arrays (The only kind which can do simultaneous AA/AG) form multiple beams independent of each other. Where one looks has no bearing whatsoever on any of the other beams. Meaning it can simultaneously view the entire FOV of the dish. While several beams are tracking, several other elements continue to scan as fast as the dedicated radar processor can shift the phases to steer the beams. The fact that it takes 2 seconds for the FCR display to update simulates the effect of the beam steering process in a “scanning” mode, which takes far less than 2 seconds. If it were not more effective and more efficient than a typical Passive array, it would not be worth the extremely high cost to upgrade nearly every aircraft in the world to an AESA. Which implies the dish can perform the full gambit scan in less than 2 seconds. It takes microseconds to form a beam, and having multiple elements means you can transmit with one and immediately move on to the next beam phase, while concurrently tuning a different element to listen for the return. Granted, there are some dishes more effective than others, due to an increased number of elements. But the fact remains, you can simulate the effects of the technology under the current system, which was the original question.
I know how work ESA radars and their scane rate is partially known for early S-300 and even for F-35.
You can be sure the scan zone was not +/-60 deg in azimuth elevation and +/- 60 deg in elevation an it took about 4 seconds to start track every target and create track not only a contact. (For creating a usable track you need at least 3 measurements.)
Therefore your changes which cover the whole pattern with a single lobe is a very strong overmodeling.
From my POV I rather do not push towards F4 which cannot model well. This is why I said many times what era is the best for the engine which is not post 2000 era… -
…but there are modern era scenerios/theaters as well… so I like if someone is trying to find a way, howto simulate modern systems (even if it is a mix of new datas + labels ON).
BTW I am aware of mentioned bubble issue (thread beggining IIRC)…on the other hand bubble spherical architecture is quite progressive, compared to original Falcon3.0 killbox architecture (you were able to spawn units few miles away, boxes were static volumes IIRC)
-
…but there are modern era scenerios/theaters as well… so I like if someone is trying to find a way, howto simulate modern systems (even if it is a mix of new datas + labels ON).
BTW I am aware of mentioned bubble issue (thread beggining IIRC)…on the other hand bubble spherical architecture is quite progressive, compared to original Falcon3.0 killbox architecture (you were able to spawn units few miles away, boxes were static volumes IIRC)
Dynamic bubble can be a way but a hard way.
-
-
i’ve also read in non english sources that they offered to pay for the MLU and an additional 100+ raptors with new avionics they would also pay for if the DOD would release raptor for raptorJ variant. thats super old though, obama and bush era.
-
God this is depressing, they got rid of F-16’s at Hill AFB by where I live and swapped over to the 35 (except maintenence on ejection seats etc will still come here). Makes me sick and sad… such a POS waste of money. Lord help any pilot in one unlucky enough to be seen. Like clubbing seals. The idea of replacing the Viper with something that does nothing that great is retarded, advances in radar could easily neutralize the only plus this plane has, if it hasn’t happened already. This is the Military Industrial Complex milking us like a cow.
-
LOL - seriously wouldnt worry about them……they will be far better off in an F-35, even when seen… why dont you pop along and ask them whether they miss the previous mounts.
-
God this is depressing, they got rid of F-16’s at Hill AFB by where I live and swapped over to the 35 (except maintenence on ejection seats etc will still come here). Makes me sick and sad… such a POS waste of money. Lord help any pilot in one unlucky enough to be seen. Like clubbing seals. The idea of replacing the Viper with something that does nothing that great is retarded, advances in radar could easily neutralize the only plus this plane has, if it hasn’t happened already. This is the Military Industrial Complex milking us like a cow.
they were saying the same thing when the F16 came out (that matters)
the f35 does EVERYTHING better than the f16.
more ords,more range,more upgrade-able etc. etc. -
God this is depressing, they got rid of F-16’s at Hill AFB by where I live and swapped over to the 35 (except maintenence on ejection seats etc will still come here). Makes me sick and sad… such a POS waste of money. Lord help any pilot in one unlucky enough to be seen. Like clubbing seals. The idea of replacing the Viper with something that does nothing that great is retarded, advances in radar could easily neutralize the only plus this plane has, if it hasn’t happened already. This is the Military Industrial Complex milking us like a cow.
you’re simply uninformed, and the media weapons have worked perfectly on your mind.
one f-35 can change a battlefield, and the 2050 initiatives, like push button automated drone tankers that respond to a position, missile and drone trucks, and the ability of aesa is basically beyond public knowledge. You’re talking nonsense, most of the jocks are itching to get that, meanwhile there are surplus vipers and bugs. They did the same with the tomcat.
as far as what you just said about the MIC, well, we export stealth technology to partner states bro, what do you think that means in the dark? don’t be a simpleton.
-
:munch:
-
I am not sure if you are uninformed or trolling Trouble, but this article is rather insightful I think.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54012&hilit=Dutch -
Really interesting article, Diver - I have been between both sides of the argument concerning the F-35. I often think back to… was it the FF forum before they shut it down?.. a post where someone put aside the say-so arguments about the F-35 and opened an Excel file to estimate its performance. What they found was very similar to what Lt. Col. Knight reported in the article - it was somewhere between a Hornet and a Falcon in terms of its maneuverability. I don’t find this surprising at all, and I’ve stated in several different places in the past that the F-35 is a lifting body airframe with a HUGE engine. The fighter will be in dire straights at high weights, of course, but EVERY fighter is in dire straights in those conditions. Neat to know.
I will also state that I am not an advocate of getting rid of your Cold War fighters, either. They were never perfect, but I always got the impression they were ruggedized to deal with the ugliness of war in a way that aircraft coming off the lines now might not be.
-
The only credible detractor the f35 has in reality is the logistics required to support it. It’s a super weapon, but you need quite a bit of Cush to make it click. Satellite, flight line, awacs, etc etc etc one kink in the chain and it becomes a paperweight. It’s like a really good mob lawyer, if it gets legal and public it’s good to have it, but you can only afford to pay for it with the dirty old fashioned business way and without Aldo, frank, and Gino , he will get beat up and tortured for all the secrets of the family.
-
hmmm to simplify it to death… how much for what an m2k and Rafale can already do in DF?
And the drops energy like crazy on high speeds… was on the small letters or my eyes still have issues? and way much emphasis that on slow speeds it’s wow.going low speed or making pirouettes on slow speeds doesn’t mean the opponent will stay slow also. something like that ain’t the argument by knowledgeable ppl here that the Su-xx TVC and agility like cobra are just wow and on actual engagement it’s pfff.
have it against an m2k or Rafale or EF and then let’s talk again… -
It’s possible I may be misunderstanding your last statement to a degree, but refer again to the article…
The F-35 kind of reminds me of the MiG-23 in the sense that it has a HUGE engine - even if the raw aerodynamics of the fighter in close quarters are not quite as outstanding as older aircraft, the sheer brute force of the powerplant is enough to allow the airframe to kick itself in the ass to get out of a bind. Unlike the '23, it will probably be limited to below Mach 1.8, but we’re talking ACM here, not interception.
That said, I also still have reservations about some contents of the article - the F-35 is still quite a heavy machine with seemingly tiny wings - the difference of course is that lifting body airframe. I think therefore you might want to consider two different, yet very similar aircraft from WWII when considering its capabilities: the P-47 and the Fw-190. One was a heavy plane with a high wing loading, and the other was a light plane with a high wing loading. Both were very capable dogfighters in the right environment, and rather poor ones in others. The F-35 can use its aerodynamics to put itself in high alpha, but is reliant on sheer power for maneuver - the '190 and the P-47 were exactly the same in the latter sense. The F-35 is a heavy bird.
I do respect your hesitation to fall into sycophantism for the F-35 - I don’t want to do that myself. The point is that we’re naturally leary of change, namely for our own protection. However, we should also consider that many projects like the JSF or TFX ultimately produce a capable airframe. THE PROBLEM IS THE INORDINANT AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL WASTE REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT THAT POINT!
-
i’m openly pro israel and my wife is from haifa so i apologize if there are feathers to be ruffled i know sometimes that happens, the initial cadre is up at Ben gurion airspace, and when I was back in november and december they started flying their f-35s real low, doing WVR BFM on basically the deck, i’d say between 800 and 2,500 from where I was looking, in the daylight, and there was media involved too. The Israeli pilots said it’s hard to get down on the papi, because of the lifting qualities of the bird, and in the low level WVR, in an ambush setting, which you really couldn’t imagine in a stealth fighter but that’s why it stuck with me in my head, I am a novice in hebrew but my wife helps me so I could be super wrong here but two different pilots said basically the same thing- it lifts itself off the deck, you can do weird shit with high AOA at low speeds.
I gotta think too, from an english perspective, dudes like Sprey and Riccioni always talked about downplaying the capabilities of the tech. I have to take that into consideration when I see pierre basically call a dude a fool on camera, and then once the camera and mic is off give him a big hug and say “good job” so…whats that word they use alot to describe cheney? Brinkmanship? that’s it i think.
-
I have seen a F-35 working on Nordic Theater 2.1