Question about the F-22 and it's radar.

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

snip

BTW, I worked on AFT, F-22, and several other current AESA programs,
including airborne processors, and integrated avionics systems.


Great, here' s a couple of questions for you.
Do you think they will combine the AESA antennas for the JSF and the
F-22 to a common 1200 module system? (I saw the number of modules for
the F-22 was at 1500). I had heard a rumour that this was on the
cards for cost savings etc.

And so, as predicted, the actual transfer of technology is from the F-35 to
the F-22.

I wonder if Oz has that check ready for a couple of squadrons ...

I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
Typhoons
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

snip

BTW, I worked on AFT, F-22, and several other current AESA programs,
including airborne processors, and integrated avionics systems.


Great, here' s a couple of questions for you.
Do you think they will combine the AESA antennas for the JSF and the
F-22 to a common 1200 module system? (I saw the number of modules for
the F-22 was at 1500). I had heard a rumour that this was on the
cards for cost savings etc.

And so, as predicted, the actual transfer of technology is from the F-35
to
the F-22.

I wonder if Oz has that check ready for a couple of squadrons ...

"Russell Waterson" wrote in message
u...
I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
Typhoons

Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that what a
modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
Gripens.

"Brian" wrote in message
news

"Russell Waterson" wrote in message
u...
I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
Typhoons

Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that what
a
modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
Gripens.

Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that of the
F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has a
substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in particular
find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new aircraft
(still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be called a
"new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes; methinks
the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since they
will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two sound
like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think so.

Brooks

"Russell Waterson" wrote in message
u...
I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off with
Typhoons

Yeah, buying the more expensive (both in terms of purchase and operating
costs), shorter range (on internal fuel), and much less stealthy Typhoon
would be a real wise move for the RAAF...

Brooks

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

snip

BTW, I worked on AFT, F-22, and several other current AESA programs,
including airborne processors, and integrated avionics systems.


Great, here' s a couple of questions for you.
Do you think they will combine the AESA antennas for the JSF and the
F-22 to a common 1200 module system? (I saw the number of modules for
the F-22 was at 1500). I had heard a rumour that this was on the
cards for cost savings etc.

And so, as predicted, the actual transfer of technology is from the F-35
to
the F-22.

I wonder if Oz has that check ready for a couple of squadrons ...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Brian" wrote in message
news

"Russell Waterson" wrote in message
u...
I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off
with
Typhoons

Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that
what
a
modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
Gripens.

Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that of
the
F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has a
substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in
particular
find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new aircraft
(still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be called a
"new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes;
methinks
the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since they
will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two
sound
like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think so.

My point was if you are going to ditcht he F-35, then the Typhoon is not a
wise choice. The Gripen is available today, is much cheaper, and just a
better airplane. I don't see where a Typhoon would be much better than a
Gripen.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:16:54 -0400, "Brian"
wrote:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Brian" wrote in message
news

"Russell Waterson" wrote in message
u...
I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off
with
Typhoons

Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that
what
a
modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and buy
Gripens.

Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that of
the
F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has a
substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in
particular
find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new aircraft
(still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be called a
"new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes;
methinks
the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since they
will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two
sound
like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think so.

My point was if you are going to ditcht he F-35, then the Typhoon is not a
wise choice. The Gripen is available today, is much cheaper, and just a
better airplane. I don't see where a Typhoon would be much better than a
Gripen.

IIRC the Aussies, like the Canadians prefer two engines minimum due to
the distances involved. That rules out the F-16, the F-35, and the
Gripen.

Considering the likely local opposition to the RAAF, high grade
stealth is unlikely to be necessary for a hell of long time.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

snip all the personal slights and fluff


This is getting silly, were getting away from the major points with
little headway being made and sniping at each other is childish - What
exactly are we arguing about....


What I say..

Tthe F/A-22 program is too expensive for the uility it provides, and
has severe problems with software and avionics, and is struggling to
survive the review.

It requires several updates to software forcing an upgrade to the
hardware, which also increases costs.

I have provided sources for my assertions, (you have rubbished the GAO
credability),. while you have provided no quotable sources to rebutt
my assertions, you ignore facts, and provide no alternative but your
unsubstanciated opinion.


What You say

The F-22 is the most capable fighter in the world, its development is
comparable to a normal fighter program, there are no major problems,
its all being taken care of.

Issues of reliability, cost, obsolecence are all figments of
someones imagination.

The F-22 has JDAMS cleared for operation use, (something I wasn't
aware of!, how long ago was it cleared for the F-22)

You don't like GAO assesment of the program.



Now for some of those side issues

Ok sources - how about LM, take a look he-

http://lean.mit.edu/Events/workshops...FA22Raptor.pdf

Page eleven- 2.1 for the airframe 3.1 for the engines.

This gives an overall score to the airframe development ie 1 lowest
to 5 highest.

or Jon Ogg on obsolete systems

Try googling " ogg stsc crosstalk " I'm sure you'll find that
interesting. especially the bit about :-


"Q: Why does it cost so much to migrate to new hardware considering
that electronics technology has decreased from five-year cycles to one
year or less?

Ogg: Many of the current architectures are unique and make software
dependent on hardware. So when hardware changes, you have to redo
software at an enormous cost.

Today there is a big push on open systems and to insulate or isolate
the hardware from the functional/program software. At some future
point, the hardware component technology will change. Open systems
minimize the dependency of executing software on the underpinning
hardware. The focus is on making the system more adaptable to future
change.

In addition to the F-22 standing out as an example of this problem, we
had the F-15, F-16, B-1, C-5, and C-130 -- multi-billion-dollar
programs -- all slated for modernization. The end-user [warfighter]
wanted enhanced capabilities and functionality that couldn't be
accommodated with existing avionic architectures. So we were faced
with modernization that typically spans four to six years due to the
need to rebuild existing software for hardware technology that was out
of production."



I like the bit about the end user myself.... capability...
functionality.... can't be done on existing avionics architecture...
Sounds familier to me....

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

Harry

Quick question - I just read that F-22 crew now carry cell phones for
when the systems go down, so they can talk to ground control, is this
true??

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

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:16:54 -0400, "Brian"
wrote:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Brian" wrote in message
news
"Russell Waterson" wrote in message
u...
I will always maintain that I think us Aussies would be better off
with
Typhoons

Why not buy F-16's instead? The Typhoon doesn't offer much more that
what
a
modern F-16 does...If the Aussies were smart, they dump the JSF and
buy
Gripens.

Why? I believe if you compare the combat radius of the JAS-39 to that
of
the
F-35A, or especially that of the F-35C, you will find that the F-35 has
a
substantially greater range, something that the Aussies would in
particular
find useful. Plus, by the time the RAAF is ready to purchase new
aircraft
(still a few years away), the Gripen will no longer be able to be
called a
"new" aircraft, having been in service since 1996 with the Swedes;
methinks
the RAAF would like to have the latest cutting edge technology, since
they
will likely be flying it for a looong time to come. Pricewise the two
sound
like they will be competitive. So you think they should buy a
shorter-legged, older aircraft, at about the same price? I don't think
so.

My point was if you are going to ditcht he F-35, then the Typhoon is not
a
wise choice. The Gripen is available today, is much cheaper, and just a
better airplane. I don't see where a Typhoon would be much better than a
Gripen.

IIRC the Aussies, like the Canadians prefer two engines minimum due to
the distances involved. That rules out the F-16, the F-35, and the
Gripen.

Odd then that the Aussies have bought into the JSF program. Guess they have
a habit of investing in programs that are "ruled out"?


Considering the likely local opposition to the RAAF, high grade
stealth is unlikely to be necessary for a hell of long time.

What "likely local opposition"?

Brooks


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster