US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
SlothmanAllen said:
I thought those were designed for F-35? Would you not need a different engine design for a dual engine design over single engine?
Click to expand...
The F-15 and F-16 used the same engine. As did later variants of the F-14.

The J-16 and J-10 also use the same engine.

There were proposals at one point to make a F135 powered twinjet. I think this was called the FB-22.

If more aircraft used the engine it would improve its economics.
 
G

gpt

Junior Member
Registered Member
S

SlothmanAllen

Senior Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
It is what it is - about 1.1k aircraft in USAF are AESA platforms; largest non-AESA element is CAF F-16C fleet, which is getting updated.
Yes, SABR radar power isn't impressive (this isn't a metric it was bought for in the first place). It's still modern AESA.

At this point it's modern radar capability is below PLAAF, but not critically so. Furthermore, Navair active and deployable strength(i.e. decks) are many times over PLANAF, as is marine air.

Too early to cheer, modernization drive is going well for China, but established superiority isn't really there yet.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, Raytheon just announced the APG-82(V)X for the for F-15EX today which adds GaN. It also is apparently a bigger radar overall which should help with detection range.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
leonzzzz

leonzzzz

New Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
AIM-120D is dual pulse, i.e. it's fair. We truly live in interesting times where we seriously discuss USAF encountering an actual equal, but it is still that - equal.
Click to expand...

leonzzzz said:
You care to elaborate on the sauce for the dual pulse?
Click to expand...
@Gloire_bb
Please either give more sauce or admit you were mistaken. Silence is adding discount to your credibility.
 
burritocannon

burritocannon

Junior Member
Registered Member
SlothmanAllen said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Having done that for the APG-82(V)X, the result is “a significant capability, especially when it comes to electronic warfare, with a more agile ability to deal with a peer ally in Russia or in the Pacific.”
Click to expand...
what? ally? tell me this was an editorial typo please.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
It is what it is - about 1.1k aircraft in USAF are AESA platforms; largest non-AESA element is CAF F-16C fleet, which is getting updated.
Yes, SABR radar power isn't impressive (this isn't a metric it was bought for in the first place). It's still modern AESA.

At this point it's modern radar capability is below PLAAF, but not critically so. Furthermore, Navair active and deployable strength(i.e. decks) are many times over PLANAF, as is marine air.

Too early to cheer, modernization drive is going well for China, but established superiority isn't really there yet.
Click to expand...
PLAAF has 2500 active fighters vs USAF only at 1200 active. Thats the big gap. With the navy and usmc fighters they get to 2300 barely.

PLAN carrier fleet will not fight US navy directly for atleast the next 15 years. They will focus on building up atleast 6 carriers before they have the confidence to fight US navy carriers head on.

PLA will rely on PLAAF and rocket force to fight the US navy in the next 15 years.

As PLAN has a stronger carrier and destroyer count they will slowly try to project power and take the fight into deep pacific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top