Reducing the 4.5 gens to almost stealth planes.

Cooling is only an issue if you wan’t to extract performance outside of the cooling margins of the platform. That may not always be the intentions. Sometimes cooling (among others) limitations force you to choose GaN instead of GaAs.

Agree.

Cooling is only an issue if you wan’t to extract performance outside of the cooling margins of the platform. That may not always be the intentions. Sometimes cooling (among others) limitations force you to choose GaN instead of GaAs.

I was actually sticking with X-band (should have been more clear) and referring to the two JSTAR sensor competitors and SAAB’s desire to compete for it.

Yes youn are right. I should have referred to a fighter sized plane. I mean their are huge issue about cooling.

The radar isn’t magically going to transform the F-18 to an F-35. As I said the determinant here is likely to be the cost difference between the F-35 and F-18 and in the short term there is little Boeing can offer above and beyond what it has already tried (Advanced/International Hornet) before. The CNO’s words a few weeks ago captured it best when he said that there are things they can do to make the Super Hornet 4.5+ but there are obviously limits and they want a fifth generation in the mix as well. Boeing’s argument would probably be like…Baseline Super Hornet $77 Million, F-18X at $85 Million (their original Advanced Hornet pitch believe it or not was 10-15% over baseline Rhino – I was surprised when I heard their representative say that and had to clarify). Once the Advanced Hornet begins to approach the $100 million mark you are not going to convince the Navy to not pay the extra $10-15 Million and buy the F-35C. It would be an extremely stupid thing to do at that point (going for the $100 Million F-18).

Geez that’s a lot of money for a SH, too much. It would be nice to upgrade the older ones though with CFTs in particular.

Not only offered but already contracted. The two new UAE AEW´s will field a GAN Erieye radar.

Cheers

I was actually sticking with X-band (should have been more clear) and referring to the two JSTAR sensor competitors and SAAB’s desire to compete for it.

But Raytheon could continue to sell APG-79s if hundreds more SHs are built if a different mix of SHs/F-35s turned out to be preferred.

The radar isn’t magically going to transform the F-18 to an F-35. As I said the determinant here is likely to be the cost difference between the F-35 and F-18 and in the short term there is little Boeing can offer above and beyond what it has already tried (Advanced/International Hornet) before. The CNO’s words a few weeks ago captured it best when he said that there are things they can do to make the Super Hornet 4.5+ but there are obviously limits and they want a fifth generation in the mix as well. Boeing’s argument would probably be like…Baseline Super Hornet $77 Million, F-18X at $85 Million (their original Advanced Hornet pitch believe it or not was 10-15% over baseline Rhino – I was surprised when I heard their representative say that and had to clarify). Once the Advanced Hornet begins to approach the $100 million mark you are not going to convince the Navy to not pay the extra $10-15 Million and buy the F-35C. It would be an extremely stupid thing to do at that point (going for the $100 Million F-18).

Given that Raytheon is working on some very advanced high tech and high risk radar programs and given the high volume competitive programs ahead I doubt that it makes sense to pursue this on their own dime. I mean what’s the incentive? This is largely a cost argument and its not like Boeing will start competing Super Hornet radars or anything. AMDR-X and AN/MPQ-64 A4 are both some fairly large and competitive programs that Lockheed is very much interested in competing. Put the LTDAMS competitive award and there are some very large and lucrative radar programs that they’d be wise to invest internal R&D $$ on compared to this.

No it is not that easy. They would need to do a design analysis to see what the effects would be on the power, cooling and other important metrics. Even for radars designed around module swap like the AN/TPS-80 (where just the first 6 sets were to be GaAs) the DOTE wouldn’t let them do IOT&E with the GaAs and would force them to re-do the entire thing with the GaN version if they went ahead with it.

But Raytheon could continue to sell APG-79s if hundreds more SHs are built if a different mix of SHs/F-35s turned out to be preferred. Also hundreds of older radars could be upgraded.

If out of luck the SH managed to have a GaN radar with a moving antenna, it could guide missiles at long range from the side, which the F-35 cannot do ( its radar is looking forward and its EOTS has a shorter range ). Maybe that version of the radar wouldn’t add more than 2 million per plane or so. But anyways I know that’s wishfull thinking it will never happen.

The F-35C will very hard to beat in cost effectiveness with the economy of scale with the other variants. And they didn’t spend so much time and money to buy an old generation plane…

I am afraid you are already being proven wrong by SAAB, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman that have offered or have considered offering “large airborne GaN Antennas” for programs of record.

Not only offered but already contracted. The two new UAE AEW´s will field a GAN Erieye radar.

Cheers

Sincerely, i do not expect a relatively large airborne antenna such a radar to be switch to GaN before GaN on diamond tech is fully ready for production.

I am afraid you are already being proven wrong by SAAB, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman that have offered or have considered offering “large airborne GaN Antennas” for establshed programs of record.

But this analysis (at the OSD) isn’t about pitting a 2017 F-35C with a 2016 F-18E but about pitting something ordered in the 2019 or beyond budget years for deliveries into the early to mid 2020s. Essentially once you have some of the changes Boeing would require to compete with the F-35C you are probably looking at a good 20-25% increase in cost (software, engine upgrades, CFTs, pods, RAM treatment, radar upgrades etc etc) That gets us to a $90-95 Million Super Hornet (2020 orders) vs something like a $115 Million F-35C.
.

I wasnt discussing an upgraded F/A-18E/F versus an F-35C, or any analysis.

Someone wrote and i quote:

I doubt if a normal F/A-18E is any cheaper than the F-35C to buy or to keep flying.

I simply pointed that was not true and it wont be.

Cost is not going to be that much of a problem for Raytheon given its foundry and the volumes it is either producing or competing to produce. Each TPY-2 is 25,000+ T/R modules and that is what they are delivering this year. If the Saudi order on THAAD comes through they could look to double annual radar production. Even at one TPY-2 a month you are essentially looking at 20-22 airborne fighter radars worth of equivalent capacity at the moment. Add to that their A4 and AMDR competes and the potential to double TPY-2 and you can get a sense of where raytheon is heading in the X-band GaN component world. The problem is to get a new radar through the Navy acquisition system, get it tested, cleared by DOTE and then field it. Someone has to pay for that and it is not a sure thing so it is unlikely to be something the OSD considers. Regardless, keep piling cost on the $77 Million FY16 baseline.

Sincerely, i do not expect a relatively large airborne antenna such a radar to be switch to GaN before GaN on diamond tech is fully ready for production.

Do you think Raytheon could afford the upgrade on its own funding? The navy could be interested in upgading some of the older APG-79s.

Given that Raytheon is working on some very advanced high tech and high risk radar programs and given the high volume competitive programs ahead I doubt that it makes sense to pursue this on their own dime. I mean what’s the incentive? This is largely a cost argument and its not like Boeing will start competing Super Hornet radars or anything. AMDR-X and AN/MPQ-64 A4 are both some fairly large and competitive programs that Lockheed is very much interested in competing. Put the LTDAMS competitive award and there are some very large and lucrative radar programs that they’d be wise to invest internal R&D $$ on compared to this.

Can they just swap the modules and that’s it?

No it is not that easy. They would need to do a design analysis to see what the effects would be on the power, cooling and other important metrics. Even for radars designed around module swap like the AN/TPS-80 (where just the first 6 sets were to be GaAs) the DOTE wouldn’t let them do IOT&E with the GaAs and would force them to re-do the entire thing with the GaN version if they went ahead with it.

Cost is not going to be that much of a problem for Raytheon given its foundry and the volumes it is either producing or competing to produce. Each TPY-2 is 25,000+ T/R modules and that is what they are delivering this year. If the Saudi order on THAAD comes through they could look to double annual radar production. Even at one TPY-2 a month you are essentially looking at 20-22 airborne fighter radars worth of equivalent capacity at the moment. Add to that their A4 and AMDR competes and the potential to double TPY-2 and you can get a sense of where raytheon is heading in the X-band GaN component world. The problem is to get a new radar through the Navy acquisition system, get it tested, cleared by DOTE and then field it. Someone has to pay for that and it is not a sure thing so it is unlikely to be something the OSD considers. Regardless, keep piling cost on the $77 Million FY16 baseline.

Can they just swap the modules and that’s it?

I like it. The pods look stealthy, but what about the CFTs? Maybe the CFTs reduce the RCS because they hide the small dorsal spine. :confused:

Maybe the dual seater would be better to remote control the UCAVs.

Cost is not going to be that much of a problem for Raytheon given its foundry and the volumes it is either producing or competing to produce. Each TPY-2 is 25,000+ T/R modules and that is what they are delivering this year. If the Saudi order on THAAD comes through they could look to double annual radar production. Even at one TPY-2 a year you are essentially looking at 20-22 airborne fighter radars worth of equivalent capacity at the moment. Add to that their A4 and AMDR competes and the potential to double TPY-2 and you can get a sense of where raytheon is heading in the X-band GaN component world. The problem is to get a new radar through the Navy acquisition system, get it tested, cleared by DOTE and then field it. Someone has to pay for that and it is not a sure thing so it is unlikely to be something the OSD considers. Regardless, keep piling cost on the $77 Million FY16 baseline.

Not yet but Raytheon has hinted that after the TPY-2 GaN upgrade they will focus on the AN/MPQ-64 A4 since they would want to be ahead of the US Army time-frame by a good 3-4 years given export prospects in Poland and the Middle East (hence we also see the AMRAAM-ER when they could have simply waited for ground launched ESSM Blk. II as they had earlier planned). TPY-2 GaN antenna is currently in production and FY17 radar deliveries will be GaN (and all that follow as well). Beyond this AMDR-X is a competitive program and probably one of the largest X-Band GaN programs. Between these efforts they are likely to create enough capacity to create an AN/APG-79 program but it will add to the cost of the aircraft and won’t provide anything in the short term. Decisions made by the OSD could affect the FY18 or 19 budget and adding cost is unlikely to get Boeing to be competitive to the F-35C since radar performance increase won’t reduce the Super Hornet’s Radar cross section or improve its passive targeting suite etc. The DOT&E won’t allow the hypothetical GaN radar to proceed without an OT&E (they are currently doing this to the AN/TPS-80 adding about 7 months to its IOT&E schedule) which would not be cheap or quick.

Do you think Raytheon could afford the upgrade on its own funding? The navy could be interested in upgading some of the older APG-79s.

Is there an upgrade path now for GaN modules on the APG-79? If not maybe Boeing could to try and convince Raytheon to invest its own money for the upgrade. If that APG-79 variant were to be used for jamming, would it be sufficient to be at parity in terms of first shot if the SH uses stealth pods that don’t increase its clean RCS?

A moving antenna with the ability to look ( and jam ) at 90+ degrees would also be nice, but I take it that would be too expensive to develop.

Problem isn’t i guess to invest in GaN antenna development, it is probably more or less advanced already (despite of huge cooling problems etc.). The problem is in cost of modules.

Is there an upgrade path now for GaN modules on the APG-79? If not maybe Boeing could to try and convince Raytheon to invest its own money for the upgrade.

Not yet but Raytheon has hinted that after the TPY-2 GaN upgrade they will focus on the AN/MPQ-64 A4 since they would want to be ahead of the US Army time-frame by a good 3-4 years given export prospects in Poland and the Middle East (hence we also see the AMRAAM-ER when they could have simply waited for ground launched ESSM Blk. II as they had earlier planned). TPY-2 GaN antenna is currently in production and FY17 radar deliveries will be GaN (and all that follow as well). Beyond this AMDR-X is a competitive program and probably one of the largest X-Band GaN programs. Between these efforts they are likely to create enough capacity to create an AN/APG-79 program but it will add to the cost of the aircraft and won’t provide anything in the short term. Decisions made by the OSD could affect the FY18 or 19 budget and adding cost is unlikely to get Boeing to be competitive to the F-35C since radar performance increase won’t reduce the Super Hornet’s Radar cross section or improve its passive targeting suite etc. The DOT&E won’t allow the hypothetical GaN radar to proceed without an OT&E (they are currently doing this to the AN/TPS-80 adding about 7 months to its IOT&E schedule) which would not be cheap or quick.

Is there an upgrade path now for GaN modules on the APG-79? If not maybe Boeing could to try and convince Raytheon to invest its own money for the upgrade. If that APG-79 variant were to be used for jamming, would it be sufficient to be at parity in terms of first shot if the SH uses stealth pods that don’t increase its clean RCS?

A moving antenna with the ability to look ( and jam ) at 90+ degrees would also be nice, but I take it that would be too expensive to develop.