F 35 Radar Fight Test - AN/APG-81 - F-35 AESA Radar

The radar is designed to enable F-35 pilots to effectively engage air and ground targets at long range, while also providing outstanding situational awareness for enhanced survivability.
In addition to providing the radar, Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector is providing the AN/AAS-37 electro-optical distributed aperture system for the F-35. The distributed aperture system will provide F-35 pilots with a unique protective sphere around the aircraft for missile warning, navigation support and night operations.
Reliability
AESA's solid-state technology and elimination of mechanical moving parts will enable the radar to far surpass current standards for systems reliability. The radar system also features a "replaceable assemblies" design for faster, easier repairs or upgrades to hardware and software modules. For these reasons, AESA life-cycle costs are expected to be significantly lower than those of MSAs. The active arrays on the F-35 should have almost twice the expected life of the airframe.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• F-35
• JSF
• Joint
• Strike
• Fighter
• Stealth
• AESA
• Radar
• Test

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 You truly are poorly informed. Just look up "USS New Jersey" and "operation Linebacker". The USA had more than the means to win the war very soon if the only objective was to stop the establishment of a communist government at all costs. But that actually came second to the preservation of the US intervention's legitimacy. You're trapped by your own argument there; as you said the war was not lost militarily. Then, think a minute about the reason why they pulled out.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 government in power, and at least giving the impression that this government was the wish of the population. When in became clear that preserving this image had failed even among the US public, the politicians concluded that allowing a new communist state was better than destroying their country's image. And it was the cold war, image was over-important.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

"except for the capital"

LOL THATS THE WHOLE POINT.

And by the way, the war took place in south vietnam, not north vietnam so your whole shelling theory is ridiculous. How are you going to shell civilian militia's who are in a friendly country?

And again, the point to the vietnam war was not to prove a point, it was purely out of fear that the spread of communism would overturn or threaten capitalism.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 there is no care for civilians (or at least the image of their treatment that filters to the media), or for image at all, you just bomb everything when the balance of power allows for it, and it did. Stopping the spread of communism was not only a military battle, it was also ideological. The whole bet of the Vietnam war was to show the world that the West was a force that would stand in the way and protect its allies, which if course implies keeping a legitimate, indigenous...

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 Look at a map of Vietnam. A lot of major northern cities are coastal, except for the capital. When the USA got into talks with North Vietnam for a ceasefire, one of the first conditions was to recall the USS New Jersey, which was severely complicating their troop deployments and supply lines. The B52 raids were poorly organized at first, but they got more effective later on, and top gun improved the picture for the fighter pilots. When the goal is to win a war at all costs...

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Shelling from the coast? You obviously have no knowledge of how modern war works. You can shell a country all day that's not going to win anything. Especially being that "shelling" only goes a few miles inland at tops.

And no, the goal WAS to win, to stop the spread of communism. When we realized that it wasn't a big deal, along with the continued protests from home, we left. Pure and simple.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 I GOT THAT. I never said the USA were militarily loosing Vietnam, they could just have shelled it into surrender from the coast without a single casualty if just winning was the goal. But the goal was to maintain a non-communist regime in power while making the whole US involvement look good to the international community, and to the home public. And they lost that.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Again, this whole time i was talking about the military prowess of ONE country-the U.S.-. So counting other coalition forces deaths does not relate to my argument

Again, we trained AND funded georgia when they lost the georgian-russian war.

But that does NOT mean we lost that war.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 It's perfectly normal to associate casualties, for a good and simple reason : they were all killed by the same enemy, during the same war. That makes them all casualties of a single side of the conflict, which is defined by being allied, and sharing the same enemies. Not military affiliation, not strategy, only who you're fighting.

Unless you're fighting for the defense of your own country, loosing politically is quite a legitimate way to end a war. Except for the soldiers.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Again, counting the south's casualties as our own is ridiculous. there's a REASON why the south had almost 4x more deaths than the U.S., and that's because they were totally separate militaries, with separate strategies.

We didn't win the war, but nearly all of the battles we won.

The war was lost purely for political reasons, not military.