There is no issue integrating IRIS-T on F-16 because both are NATO weapons and performance is covered by treaty and .gov security classifications. Violate .gov security and contractor personnel can go to prison and the company can be barred from current and future classified projects (It’s the Sword of Damocles that no contractor wants to violate).

Integration of complex engineered systems (airplane and missile) is done by the 2 parties signing a “Proprietary Information Agreement” and jointly authoring an “Interface Control Document”.

A PIA is a contractually enforceable agreement that states neither party will disclose or utilize the other’s data. A government security classification can be applied on top of a PIA. Big time lawsuits and/or prison time can result if violation occurs.

An ICD defines all the goes-intos and goes-out-ofs for the interface of each party’s equipment. The internal workings and performance of each party’s equipment is treated as a black box as no information about internal workings is provided. In the case of a new missile installation, the airframer would provide specifics about: captive carry loads/G forces/air loads/buffet, aircraft roll/pitch/yaw characteristics that could effect missile launch, landing shock, grounding interface, control data interface and bandwith, electrical power availability, aero flow field characteristics, launcher mounting provisions, aircraft INS/GPS accuracy (if needed by the missile), datalink frequency range and bandwidth (if needed) and the like.

The missile manufacturer would provide: size/shape aero model to determine drag during captive carry, missile weight, CG, electrical power and data requirements (power on sequence, safe/arming commands, seeker activation/slewing, lock-on tones, fuse programming, A/C position reference upload/update by hardline and/or datalink), a simple kinematic model that describes limitations for launch, rail mounting requirements, and stuff like missile RF emissions so airframe systems aren’t blinded for those occasions where the missile seeker goes active on the rail.

As you can see, neither party obtains enough data to reverse engineer the other’s equipment. The airframer does not get the missile’s blueprints and the missile manufacturer does not get the airplane’s blueprints.

Later in integration, a Joint Test Plan is produced that define the test program and data parameters to be collected. The data only covers the launch of the missile. It does not repeat missile performance tests that were done as part of missile development.

For the paranoid fanboys who read the entire post, forget it! The :dev2: evil Americans are coming to steal your secrets.:p

Thanks a million for your detailed explanation.

How about integrating non-NATO weapons on US fighters? For instance, Israeli Python IV is integrated on Chilean F-16s. Does the same procedure apply?

Thanks in advance,
Sunho

I heard about a rumor that they changed the base concept from Dutch Sigma Corvette to Italian Commandante Class Corvette. However, there are no official news from the government and I am kind a afraid that it will be stuck in proposal process.

The navy or parliament seems to have some disagreement on the technical design of the ship. Moreover, there are some discrepancies between what the contract and the reality; for example, it was known that the last 2 of Sigma corvettes will be built in PT PAL in Surabaya but at the end they decided that it will be built in Dutch shipyard.

My government does not give an accurate information about it, they seems to avoid giving an exact statement about it.

A few days ago South Korea’s Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy announced that it will help Korean shipbuilders win the Indonesian contract through a government-to-government talk. I guess Daewoo or Hyundai are lobbying hard to get into the Indonesian corvette business.

The Ministry said the Indonesian government has two projects, a USD 750 million-worth project to build two submarines and another USD 150 million-worth one to build two “small destroyers (in other words corvettes).”

Cheers,
Sunho

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0210/FR0210c.htm

That may give an idea.

Thanks a lot for the link.

“zoom in close-up for target recognition and attack. Identification of 10m-sized buildings from a distance of 70 km should be no problem.”

Could it be further developed to be an effective counter to “radar stealth” aircraft? You may hide yourself against radar but not against thermal imaging camera…?

Cheers,
Sunho

The IN Sea Harriers are earmarked for EL-M/2032 for the current upgrade,the Jags still has the Agave.

But this Jaguar’s radome looks a bit different. Do you have credible sources to back up your claim that the Indian Jaguars still have the French Agave radar?

Cheers,
Sunho

“and some B-58 bombers and accompanying tankers were earmarked for
> forward deployment there.”

From your link and what was …..accompanying ….!
As long as such pilot gives no mission details about related way-points, speed and flight-profil, someone has to stay carefull about claims. You can control such claims today with the help of Google Earth, when figuring out the related distances by that!

Why not come to rec.aviation.military and dispute his claim?

The former B-58 pilot I quoted is Lieutenant Colonel Darrell R. Schmidt, USAF, Retired.

Cheers,
Sunho

Is it Bill Guston’s F-111 book from Ian Allan?

Cheers,
Sunho

BVR doesnt take at 40nm , the kill might take at those distances but the engagement doesnt necc start at those distances unless you want to consider a simple Iraqi scenario where F-15’s are patrolling mig-29’s take off and the AWACS vector in and the F-15 gets a ceremonial kill as to say !! Actual BVR scenarios ( those envolving comparable enemies) take place starting much much farther and envolve much much more complex scenarios such as Intercepts , Airspace denial etc etc Imagine an AWACS detects a fleet of Su-27s comming at 120nm and directs F-22’s to intercept and nuetralize the threat the distances then can become very large depending upon where the F-22’s are and how they plot the engagement and how the engagement is going to proceed , normally what happens is that beyond say 40-50nm the enemies fail to manuver because evrything that they do will be countered by an equally impressive manuver (- Like say i try to get Lateral seperation the other side will counter that by closing in the gap therefore we begin from the start . ) However if one of the fighters is zippn through at mach 1.5 or higher he can fly faster to the place in his Engagement Plot where he would like to be in to bring his weapons to bear , for him he can zip out of the FOV of the opponent , gain altitude and get so much lat. seperation in little time because he is going almost twice as fast ( try to imagine the scenario by using your hands as 2 fighters closing in ) therefore he has an advantage on the account of being able to cover more airspace in lesser time and HARASS the opponent on his way to entering his WEAPONS range which will also be increased because he is going at twice the speed of his opponent from the get go . This would lead to the opponent having to go fast to counter the Lat. seperation that his opponent is getting on him and to counter the altitude that the opponent is gaining aswell – GET THE PICTURE?? its all about manuvers and counter manuvers and the only way they will fly free while comming into the weapons range is if both can counter each other out and make manuvering completely useless as it would only serve to loose fuel and decrease persistance .

In real combat so far at least two out of all nine AMRAAM engagements were made inside 40 NM. And according to the article “Fighter Town in Fife” in the June 2006 issue all AMRAAM shooters were within visual range when the missile hit the target.

In Kosovo 1999 Captain Jeff Hwang detected two MiG-29s at 37 NM before the AWACS got them and fired his first AMRAAM inside 16 NM. The kill was made inside 5 NM.

When a Dutch F-16AM shot down a MiG-29 earlier in the war, the distance between them was 18km at the moment the MiG exploded.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990401_01_n.shtml

At what ranges did the Raptors ‘kill’ other fighters in recent training exercises?

Cheers,
Sunho

I assume you don’t use M1.5 in a knife fight, but you still could use that speed in terms of BVR contact. OK, now you got two opponents some 40-50 miles away at M1.5 and both aircraft are ready to fire their BVRs.. What advantage does maneuvrability bring here? At 50 miles an opponent stays exactly the same small blip on the screen regardless on what maneuvers does he make.

I must probably have missed the whole concept, but I find a capability to turn 6g at Mach 1.7 at least as useful as to have a $5000 submersible refrigerator or $2500 bullet proof toaster.

Supersonic maneuvrability may help the Raptor avoid enemy’s missiles.

Below is from August 2005 Jane’s IDR.

“If the adversary does manage to detect the F/A-22 and launch a missile, supersonic manoeuvrability provides an effective defence. Former F/A-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz calls this “cranking” – pulling a supersonic turn after firing a missile, forcing a hostile missile to manoeuvre with rapidly increasing line-of-sight rates. “Cranking after the shot always reduces the enemy’s effective missile range, but a supercruise crank places the F-22 way outside an adversary’s maximum range, even if it could detect the F/A-22,” says Metz.”