wrightwingjackjack, i’m tired of your puppy dog “smartness.”
The original comment stated that using the aesa as your a2a jammer would be “just fine.”
I mentioned that the radar was unlikely to give you 360 degree coverage; to which your “smart” response was “ever heard of awacs..”
Please could you provide some data and sources on the abilities of awacs with regard to jamming?
Apply some thought and analysis man. That’s the ability that distinguishes us humans from the other apes.
You clearly either are incapable of understanding, are deliberately stirring or just plain don’t have a clue.
The AWACS would alert the plane to threats outside of its radar azimuth. Those threats that are within the azimuth could be dealt with, or the plane could change course to deal with new threats.
wrightwingSmall groups of antennas has the drawback of low antenna gain and low resolution and uncontrolled interacting between this groups (side lobes). Therefore the most stupid thing to do.;)
By using clusters of T/R modules the antenna gain/aperture is variable, giving very high resolution.
wrightwingWell me i’m no aviation engineer or whatever , but i would expect the Su-27/F-15A story being repeated again…The Su will have a better airframe-more aerodinamically efficient, more manoeuvrable, more agile etc, while the electronics will be almost as good …
Most importantly , it will be much cheaper, maby half the price of an F-22, offering perhaps 90% of its capability …so it would be a better bang for the buck! ( so what you would have , Raptors or twice as many T-50s 90% as good as the F-22?:p)Just my humble opinion…
90% of the capabilities at 50% of the cost is highly optimistic. My guess is that it will be more like 70-80% of the capabilities and 70-75% of the cost.
wrightwingJust wait… just wait until the armchair experts see the T-50, if you want to see some hysteria.
X, will infer Y. People will state, with great self importance that they know someone, somewhere, who can state, with absolute authority that Z is wrong. Clearly Z is a fatal flaw.
Then some organisation somewhere, will run a simulation, with data of dubious quality, which states that the airframe, their nation has an interest in, has a capability to detect the T-50 at 75km, quite easily… and journalists from that country will suggest that such a capability is actually quite a conservative estimate.
And their next generation missiles? Wellll… I’m glad you asked. The T-50 wont stand a chance.
And on.
And on.
5th Generation Fighter #3, PAK-FA, T-50… let’s see it Russia – I’m sick with anticipation 😉
Unlike the armchair experts talking about other aircraft? Until some sort of specifications are released, it’s all speculation anyhow.
wrightwing250 NM supercruise plus 30 min CAP on internal fuel its not “bingo real quick”… Not here not in the moon…
EF official numbers from the 2006 Norway presentation.
Is that 250nm SC a radius, or one way? Is the CAP also supercruise, or is it subsonic? What speed is being used to define supercruise for this specification(i.e. can it travel 250nm at M1.3)?
wrightwingI haven’t always agreed with COLA’s views, but on the subject of the F-111, I have to agree with him. The fact remains that they are old, maintenance intensive airframes which could be outfitted with state-of-the-art modular electronics to reduce some maintenance, they certainly have the room, but it’s more cost effective to replace them to save on all other maintenance costs. In terms of capability, I agree that they are unmatched to this day. One thng I disagree on, at LOW LEVEL, there is no other aircraft that can keep up with an F-111, not even EF or F-22.
Why would the pursuing aircraft dive down to low level, trying to keep up, when it could remain at higher altitudes, where they wouldn’t have issues maintaining higher airspeeds?
wrightwingWell I don’t know who you are and I don’t care, but as soon as you picked up the subject, it’s assuming you have some knowledge on the topic.
I think even idiots, know how to go on Wiki and search up for Growler and Raven.
That Raven doesn’t fit in 2010, is another fabrication of your ignorance and has nothing to do with brain.
That Raven got retired has nothing to do with its capabilities but other things…Now before you rush replying, do some research… 😉
How many airframe hours do you expect these F-111s upgraded to EF-111 spec to have? What about other spare parts issues? What does that EF-111 do when it has to defend itself against other fighters, as it doesn’t carry AIM-120s or HARMS against SAM sites.
wrightwinghttp://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/25395.html
Raytheon has demonstrated the system can transmit data at rates of 274 megabytes a second — “a speed that starts to approach instantaneous,” said Mike Henchey, Raytheon’s director of strategy and business development, Tactical Airborne Systems. It is a speed that easily eclipsed the current military standard. “If you are relying on a tactical data link like Link 16, it might take you close to an hour to get a 72-megabyte file off of the aircraft,” said Carmichael. With R-CDL, that transmission “is a matter of 3 to 5 seconds,” he said.
Operationally, AESA radar is expected to deliver a 2-to-3 times boost in performance, said Mike Henchey, Raytheon director of strategy and business development, Tactical Airborne Systems (TAS). The technology extends “the range at which you are able to detect a target” and, “because you’ve got many, many small radars (or T/R modules), updates the target’s position very, very quickly,” said Geraghty.
AESA radar can “truly be a force multiplier,” said Dave Goold, Raytheon’s business development director for the F-18. On a two-place Super Hornet with decoupled cockpit, for example, “you could have the front cockpit doing an air-to-air mission, while nearly simultaneously the aft cockpit is performing air-to-ground.”
“These modes can be interleaved and operated near-simultaneously, demonstrating a quantum leap in combat capability over our legacy radars.”
wrightwingThanks Spudman. Still quite a slow refit and it appears to be at the moment US based airframes. It would be fair to say that those Lakenheath based F-15Cs wouldn’t have been fielding AESA against the Spanish Typhoons.
TJ
It is a slow process, but you’re still talking about >50 F-15Cs with AESAs(including the (v)2s, >100 F-22s, and >hundreds of Super Hornets. It will be quite some time before any other air force(s) have that many AESA equipped airframes.
wrightwingAESA rocks, now doubt. However, unless you have a “swashplate design” or something similar (which both Gripen and Typhoon will be getting, it seems) will there not be a punishment range-wise when looking at things that are “off-bore sight” so to speak? Does anybody know how rapidly this drops off?
I think this disadvantage is mitigated by the increase in range, and speed that the available volume is scanned, combined with multiple datalinked platforms. Once side arrays, or curved arrays(using thinner T/R modules)come online, off boresite limitations will no longer be an issue.
wrightwingjackjack, through either ignorance, lack of maturity or deliberately you are over simplifying the arguement.
Nobody has stated at any point that aesa are not useful for a multitude of purposes, that they do not offer advantages over mech antennas or that they are not the future.
You however have distilled the arguement down to he likes that plane more than another one…a point which doesn’t actually stand scrutiny as he hasn’t mentioned a plane at any point!
I think the point he was making was that Over G is minimizing(or outright ignoring) the advantages that AESA radars have, either due to personal agenda, or a lack of understanding of how AESA radars actually work.
wrightwingAesa jammers makes sense
Aesa radars used as jammers don’t make any sense 🙂
Sure they do. If you focus narrow high energy beams which disable enemy fire control radars, then that makes a lot of sense.
wrightwingOk, i will put some hints, probably some of you will do some research, and learn that your holy AESA is not that holy..
Agile beam forming (permits thousands of beam positions per second).
Some other factoids- AESA vs. PESA
The primary advantage of a AESA over a PESA is that the different modules can operate on different frequencies. Unlike the PESA, where the signal was generated at single frequencies by a small number of transmitters, in the AESA each module broadcasts its own independent signal. This allows the AESA to produce numerous “sub-beams” and actively “paint” a much larger number of targets. Additionally, the solid-state transmitters are able to broadcast effectively at a much wider range of frequencies, giving AESAs the ability to change their operating frequency with every pulse sent out. AESAs can also produce beams that consist of many different frequencies at once, using post-processing of the combined signal from a number of TRMs to re-create a display as if there was a single powerful beam being sent.
In addition to the advantages offered by PESAs, notably the lack of mechanical steering and the ability to form multiple beams, but add many capabilities of their own. Among these are the ability to use some of the TRMs for “other purposes”, like radar detection, and more importantly, the difficulties that AESAs cause for radar detectors.
In addition to these advantages, the AESA has smaller sidelobes, is harder to detect, is more reliable, and harder to jam. Aside from that, there’s not much difference.
wrightwing‘multitasking’ comes with a price, splitting the beam comes with a price
Using the beam for ECM is a dumb idea
With AESA, you’re not talking about just 1 beam though, which is why it’s not a dumb idea. Additionally, the speed with which an AESA scans, changes modes/freqs makes multitasking transparent to the pilot.
wrightwingSo even if you have an aesa you still need a dedicated jammer to do real ecm.
There’s different purposes for both. Jamming X band breaks the kill chain for weapons guidance, so that’s more of a self protection capability. Jamming other bands interferes with detection, tracking, C2, etc…, among other capabilities.
Sign In
