First increment 3.1 ac delivered

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1057
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 16:47

As Flight Global reports the first F-22A (4115) with the increment 3.1 upgrade enhancements has been delivered to the 3rd FW at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.

According the article EA capabilities are introduced with the new upgrade, thus the first formal confirmation I have seen on this.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-369886/
Offline

exfltsafety

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 19:11

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 18:52

Article also mentions "The Raptor will also gain an automatic ground collision avoidance system" in a future increment 3.2 upgrade. Is it in 3.2A for 2014, in 3.2B for 2017, or 3.2C for 20?? ?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 19:07

exfltsafety wrote:Article also mentions "The Raptor will also gain an automatic ground collision avoidance system" in a future increment 3.2 upgrade. Is it in 3.2A for 2014, in 3.2B for 2017, or 3.2C for 20?? ?


If I had to guess, it'd be in 3.2A. This will help mitigate issues with the OBOGS system/pilot unconsciousness, if they are still unable to ascertain the origins of the problem.
Offline

pants3204

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 04:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 19:43

Will the F-22 ever employ the AN/APG-81 over the 77?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4735
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 19:48

No, the antenna is too small and the software is incompatible.

What might happen (years down the line) is a -81 backend , a -77 frontend, and new T&R modules.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 20:20

SpudmanWP wrote:No, the antenna is too small and the software is incompatible.

What might happen (years down the line) is a -81 backend , a -77 frontend, and new T&R modules.


I believe the APG-77(v)1 already has different T/R modules, as well as upgraded backend components. I'm sure over it's career, there'll be significant upgrades just like the APG-63 had.
Offline

pants3204

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 04:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 20:36

Is there a difference between the AESA arrays of the AN/APG-77 and -81, or is it just the sensor and software suite?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 20:42

pants3204 wrote:Is there a difference between the AESA arrays of the AN/APG-77 and -81, or is it just the sensor and software suite?


The -77 has considerably more(and different) modules.
Offline

pants3204

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 04:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 20:56

wrightwing wrote:
pants3204 wrote:Is there a difference between the AESA arrays of the AN/APG-77 and -81, or is it just the sensor and software suite?


The -77 has considerably more(and different) modules.

In that sense, then, is there a correlation between quantity of modules and and the system's capabilities? From my studies, I have learned that the -81 is the -77's successor, but decreasing the number of modules seems counterintuitive. Are they more efficient? Perhaps these new modules are more sensitive?

Thanks.
Offline

BDF

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006, 13:54

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 03:02

Good news to see, just so frustrated with the glacial upgrade spirals. The most interesting part of the article that I saw was the air force is still interested in introducing a open architecture to make upgrades much faster and possibly compatible with the F-35 program. IMO that should be the number one priority for the F-22 PO, otherwise the F-22 will end up going the way of the F-14 program with tons of potential but no funding.
When it comes to fighting Raptors, "We die wholesale..."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2109
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 03:11

pants3204 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
pants3204 wrote:Is there a difference between the AESA arrays of the AN/APG-77 and -81, or is it just the sensor and software suite?


The -77 has considerably more(and different) modules.

In that sense, then, is there a correlation between quantity of modules and and the system's capabilities? From my studies, I have learned that the -81 is the -77's successor, but decreasing the number of modules seems counterintuitive. Are they more efficient? Perhaps these new modules are more sensitive?

Thanks.
the F-35's nose is much smaller than the F-22's. There isn't enough space to fit the F-22's antenna, inside of an F-35. It's like trying to put an F-14's antenna, into an F-16. The APG-81 has more modes, but less raw power, and range.
Offline

BDF

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006, 13:54

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 03:19

pants3204 wrote:In that sense, then, is there a correlation between quantity of modules and and the system's capabilities? From my studies, I have learned that the -81 is the -77's successor, but decreasing the number of modules seems counterintuitive. Are they more efficient? Perhaps these new modules are more sensitive?

Thanks.


The APG-81 has a lower module count because it's a smaller array; i.e. the F-35 has a smaller nose. The T/R modules in the 81 probably have a higher average power rating, maybe smaller, lighter and more efficient in their thermal cycle. That being said the APG-77 is generally credited with about 15-20% greater range but little else is know vid a vis 81. The -77v1 is based on the -81 TR tech tree but there is almost no information on what capabilities it has vs the baseline -77.

It's tempting to assume that the -81 is a more capable radar because its newer and indeed it is a more capable radar since it can almost certainly perform A-G modes that the -77 cannot, but I'm skeptical that there's a significant difference in A-A modes although it's possible. Certainly there hasn't been anything published to indicate there a significant difference in capabilities between the two.
When it comes to fighting Raptors, "We die wholesale..."
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3267
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 06:57

Still no word on MADL?..
Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4735
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 07:31

For F-22?

IIRC it was pushed to the rights as the F-35 that it would communicate with were also pushed to the right. No need to upgrade an F-22 to talk to an F-35 that will not be flying yet. Also, MADL has not finished dev so again, not ready for install yet.

FY2013 budget docs make no mention of MADL for the F-22.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4735
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 07:52

exfltsafety wrote:Article also mentions "The Raptor will also gain an automatic ground collision avoidance system" in a future increment 3.2 upgrade. Is it in 3.2A for 2014, in 3.2B for 2017, or 3.2C for 20?? ?


The FY2013 budget shows 35 Inc 3.2B kits ordered in 2016.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests