By: MadRat
- 7th April 2015 at 02:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Last time I checked significant difference generally meant somewhere between 1.5% to 5% increments.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 7th April 2015 at 06:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
tipping is a special case, where 10-15 cent or 1.5% can be considered a significant tip on a 10 dollar meal,
here, a generous tip would simply transform into a blatant and quite rude show-off going up to a 10% one dollar tip
By: snafu352
- 8th April 2015 at 13:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So thats essentially what he is saying as well. The F-15C/D is going to be secondary to the F-22 and F-35 fleets, which would ultimately play a secondary role to the fighters that will look to replace them well into the future. No one is going to claim that the F-15C even with AESA and newer EW gear is going to be a cutting edge fighter in the 2030's nor will it act as such since its operator would have a sizable next generation fleet by then. As per the current plans the F-35 acquisition winds down in 2038 and by then the F-X should be in LRIP if not full rate of production. Depending upon how development, and budgets pan out you would be looking to either replace the F-15C/D's with the F-X (replace F-22+F-15C fleets) or continue buying more F-35's if there are cost or technical challenges developing or producing the F-X.
UCAV's would obviously be in addition to this.
@FBW, I suggest you change the title of the thread :)
Spuddy, like many US orientated folk, assumes the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are equivalent to the F-15.
He also assumes that only US tactics and methods are relevant.
Anybody with a little more knowledge than just the US and US types knows those assumptions are inaccurate.
Thus to claim that because the F-15 will become less effective the Typhoon etc. will also do so to the same degree is also inaccurate.
Nic has done a good job of setting out how UCAV's will complement the current European fighters in the future.
By: bring_it_on
- 13th May 2015 at 18:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As of now weapons upgrades are tied to block upgrades. This is true for most programs in the US. UAI is an effort to change that as you can field multiple weapons even in between updates thanks to the streamlined effort. It has already been rolled out in the F-15E and F-16 fleets and should be available to the F-35 fleet in the early 2020's. Aim-120D integration on the F-22A should also occur fairly soon and they plan on having an HMS as well around the end of the decade. Slow progress yes, but as mentioned above by Rii, it really has marginal impact on what rolls its likely to play in the next few years. It can be argued that giving it a SAR capability (which it does) is much more relevant to the immediate future.
By: mrmalaya
- 14th May 2015 at 10:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Saw this elsewhere on the web and thought it deserved a mention particularly given the heated debate about low level penetration and RCS over on the Rafale thread:
New AESA radar for the B1B with details of its ability to map and operate at different angles depending on which way the aircraft is facing in relation to the ground and those hunting it.
By: Levsha
- 14th May 2015 at 10:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has the USAF ordered this radar for the B-1B? How long will they continue to operate the B-1B?
Edit: just looked further into the article:
The development of SABR-GS took place under a $21 million risk reduction contract awarded in 2011 by the Air Force B-1 Systems Program Office. Northrop Grumman has demonstrated in flight, the advanced B-1 AESA and advanced sensor and fusion processing, readying the radar for the engineering, manufacturing and development phase.
By: SolarWarden
- 15th May 2015 at 02:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Will the B1's AESA be bigger/more modules than its fighter counter parts?
And just a thought.... Why not turn the B1 into a long range EW platform? Can you imagine the amount EW power
it would bring. It would be able to carry many AGM-88 missiles and jamming pods.
By: bring_it_on
- 15th May 2015 at 03:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Will the B1's AESA be bigger/more modules than its fighter counter parts?
Yes, Its 3 times the size of the F-16 SABR.
And just a thought.... Why not turn the B1 into a long range EW platform? Can you imagine the amount EW power
it would bring. It would be able to carry many AGM-88 missiles and jamming pods.
By: FBW
- 15th May 2015 at 12:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shocking, the senate cuts money from the LRS-B to keep two programs the airforce does not need or want. In 2020, congress will be wondering why the new bomber project is behind schedule and over budget after years of cutting money at the front end of the program. SOS in Washington.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 7th April 2015 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Last time I checked significant difference generally meant somewhere between 1.5% to 5% increments.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 7th April 2015 at 06:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
tipping is a special case, where 10-15 cent or 1.5% can be considered a significant tip on a 10 dollar meal,
here, a generous tip would simply transform into a blatant and quite rude show-off going up to a 10% one dollar tip
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 8th April 2015 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For the interested, the USAF FY '16 Budget breakdown is available at the airforce financial management site:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget/
Interesting tidbit, an AMRAAM D costs 978,000 for FY '16 and goes down from there.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 8th April 2015 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spuddy, like many US orientated folk, assumes the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are equivalent to the F-15.
He also assumes that only US tactics and methods are relevant.
Anybody with a little more knowledge than just the US and US types knows those assumptions are inaccurate.
Thus to claim that because the F-15 will become less effective the Typhoon etc. will also do so to the same degree is also inaccurate.
Nic has done a good job of setting out how UCAV's will complement the current European fighters in the future.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th April 2015 at 13:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/04/08/norad-f16-upgrade-cruise-missile-threat/25418367/
Reading between the lines, it comes off as a scare tactic to get congress to pony up money for the cancelled AESA upgrades to the F-16.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 28th April 2015 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LRS-B gets funding cut for this year:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/27/house-cuts-460m-from-air-forces-next-generation-stealth-bomber/
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 13th May 2015 at 16:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-22 fires Aim-9x for the first time:
http://www.janes.com/article/51375/f-22-notches-first-guided-aim-9x-sidewinder-firing
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-test-fired-two-guided-aim-9x-sidewinder-missiles-from-f-22-raptor-4575760
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 13th May 2015 at 18:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Eleven years after aim-9X entered in USAF service and three years after the last F-22 was delivered...
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 13th May 2015 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And at least five years before the F-22 gets any real competition.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 13th May 2015 at 18:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As of now weapons upgrades are tied to block upgrades. This is true for most programs in the US. UAI is an effort to change that as you can field multiple weapons even in between updates thanks to the streamlined effort. It has already been rolled out in the F-15E and F-16 fleets and should be available to the F-35 fleet in the early 2020's. Aim-120D integration on the F-22A should also occur fairly soon and they plan on having an HMS as well around the end of the decade. Slow progress yes, but as mentioned above by Rii, it really has marginal impact on what rolls its likely to play in the next few years. It can be argued that giving it a SAR capability (which it does) is much more relevant to the immediate future.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 13th May 2015 at 20:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What The B-3 Bomber Should Be
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 14th May 2015 at 00:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any signs ie pics or videos of F-15E models with AIM-9X?
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 14th May 2015 at 01:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah they carry them..Here's the SG carrying
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 14th May 2015 at 10:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Saw this elsewhere on the web and thought it deserved a mention particularly given the heated debate about low level penetration and RCS over on the Rafale thread:
http://defense-update.com/20150506_sabr_gs_radar_for_b1b.html#.VVRuIPlViko
New AESA radar for the B1B with details of its ability to map and operate at different angles depending on which way the aircraft is facing in relation to the ground and those hunting it.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237437[/ATTACH]
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 14th May 2015 at 10:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has the USAF ordered this radar for the B-1B? How long will they continue to operate the B-1B?
Edit: just looked further into the article:
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 14th May 2015 at 16:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They've not set an hard out of service date. They've said that it will serve "at least through the 2030's"
Some of the upgrades are needed and well overdue. Some of the crews were still buying handheld GPS receivers well into the Afghanistan conflict.
Some of the recent work:
http://defensetech.org/2014/02/21/air-force-begins-massive-b-1b-overhaul/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsboeing-upgrades-usaf-b-1b-lancer-aircraft-fleet-4569025
Posts: 234
By: SolarWarden - 15th May 2015 at 02:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Will the B1's AESA be bigger/more modules than its fighter counter parts?
And just a thought.... Why not turn the B1 into a long range EW platform? Can you imagine the amount EW power
it would bring. It would be able to carry many AGM-88 missiles and jamming pods.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 15th May 2015 at 03:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, Its 3 times the size of the F-16 SABR.
The Core component jammer looked at that.
Posts: 234
By: SolarWarden - 15th May 2015 at 05:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's a shame they canceled it. B1 would be better suited in my opinion.
But i guess they went with this?
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 15th May 2015 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shocking, the senate cuts money from the LRS-B to keep two programs the airforce does not need or want. In 2020, congress will be wondering why the new bomber project is behind schedule and over budget after years of cutting money at the front end of the program. SOS in Washington.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/sasc-markup-whacks-lrs-bomber-adds-12-super-hornets-6-f-35bs/