![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Cook" wrote in message ... OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'. I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.) The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC). The whole avionics suite of the F-22 is now obsolete, and will cost another $3.5 Billion to 'upgrade' thats the cut from the $11.7 Billion thats been bandied about. Do you have anything to support that contention? There is a bit of a difference between wanting to improve the computers during the spiral development process and claiming that the "whole avionics suite is *obsolete*", isn't there? Just the official reports!!, Lockheed has only purchased enough processors for 155 F-22's because there out of production, the demand for Air to ground operations has increased the demand on processing power, something the original processors are not quite upto hence the _need_ for the 'upgrade'. Let's see, 155 out of a possible total buy of some 269 aircraft, or a more likely buy of 200-220, would seem to indicate that the first few *years* of production are covered. Nor has it been conclusively demonstrated that these processors are incapable of handling the aircraft's air-to-ground strike needs during it's initial gestation; more in the form of not being able to handle the *ultimate* (post spiral) capability that is envisioned. So the processors are obsolete, (too old)... the Avionic architecture needs to be replaced before the F-22 can become the F/A-22 because the present system is based on the old processors and rewriting the code is pointless on an obsolete system, that would only support half of the F-22 fleet You appear to be reading quite a lot into this situation that has not been clearly stated. The F/A-22, when it first enters into frontline operational service, will be capable of conducting precision ground strike operations, with the existing systems. It is desired that the system be enhanced through its lifetime, hence that $11 billion dollar cost, which includes enhancements to its ISR capabilities (and one would suspect that is where the enhanced radar is goinfg to be of the most value), its AA capabilities, etc. They have to go with a more COTS based system (similar to, if not the same as the JSF), which they are working on now, for fielding in (very optomisticlly) in 2007. A simple analogy for you, the old 486 computer still works, but when I wanted to run XP on it the demands of the system increased to the point where it was useless to try, and you couldn't buy a 486 processor anywhere to support it. I call that an 'obsolete system', it worked great running win 98. Now the Raptor can't run the software to do its air to ground mission for the same reasons what would you call it?. "processor challenged???" "Can't run the software" to do the air-to-ground mission? Odd, as the USAF claims that at present, "The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability." It can already lug a couple of JDAM's. So how does that even *require* an optimized ground mapping radar to allow it to strike ground targets with significant precision? Out of curiousity, why do you have this visceral hatred of the F/A-22? Does it perhaps stem from the fact that you know your own nation can never afford it, or what? I don't hate it, I just think its not worth the money, if it had been half the price and worked as advertised I would be impressed. As it is the price is $150M and development is not mature, production has started, How would you describe the F-22 process?. LOL! By your definition, no aircraft would ever enter service, as "development is not mature". I guess you have kind of missed out on the *continuing* development of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, huh? I'd describe it as about par for the course, especially when viewed against contemporaries like the Typhoon and Raptor, which are also entering service while development continues. You really need to get your head out of the WWII era in terms of fighter development--heck, even before that, as we saw with how both the P-47 and P-51 gestated (recall the original P-51's were purchased and produced with less-than-optimal engines, to boot). Its not a model that every industry is adopting is it. Looks an awful lot like the same model the Europeans are using, based upon where they are with Rafale and Typhoon. I do not doubt that Australia can't afford it, however its looking increasing likely that the US may join us in that. I think you can probably count on seeing that "Silver Bullet" force enter into service...oh, that's right, you are the guy who can't grasp the viability of that approach, being so firmly wedded to your purely Lanchesterian model of attritionary combat and all... Brooks Brooks Normally a program this far into production can't be cancelled, but this program seems to be trying real hard... The JSF seems (at least so far) to be much more aware of getting development right first, then moving onto production. (and it doesn't need the F-22 SMURFS:-)) Cheers John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|