nhamptonI strongly suspect that experience gained from operating other kinds of AESA is highly relevant; it is often claimed that the software part of the AESA is not only important but also very tricky. I would think that many of the basic algorithms developed for one AESA would be applicable for another, even if one is an EriEye (or even ship based) and the other is in a fighter plane.
Size and power usage are parameters more relevant for the physical components of the system; they are seldom relevant for the software, with one exception; new computers are more powerful use less power and weigh less than the older — if anything this is an advantage to Saab 🙂 They have developed sophisticated algorithms that can run on the powerful but heavy computers on the Erieye systems — with the newer, more powerful CPUs those same algorithms can with some mods be moved into a fighter…
I suspect the gap between US and Europe in terms of AESA is not as large as some people here claim. There is a gap, but Europe is probably not “several generations behind”.
L
Lets start from the pointy end.
How many large exercises have European air forces conducted with fighters equipped with AESA so far? Do they hae real world operation experience wielding their new weapon in a fighter?
The Americans have been developing fighter based AEASA radars since the mid 90s. Their firs airborne AESA first flew in the 80s with the B1-B. Why the gap in time?
Do you really think that the LPI algorithms, the ground attack algorithms, the EW algorithms and the targeting algorithms are going to be found on non fighter based AESA?
The American R&D budget is huge. Do you really think they are going to be sitting on their hands with their current generation of AESA? What advances will they come up with in the 2012 – 2015 time frame?
They already have fielded in squadron service over 150 fighter AESAs with many more to come between now and 2012 – 2015. I am sure they have learned a thing or two about AESAs with their real world experience.
What has Selex done during this time? What about Thales?
There is a huge advantage.
nhamptonHow about you choose a number. Tell me what comes with that number and we can take it from there.
nhamptonWell at least the link kept you busy for 18mins.:eek::D
Before you go commenting on my attention span I strongly suggest you read the entire thread. It has nothing to do with the raptor and nothing to do with what is and is not included in a certain accounting bucket.
The question remains, why spend upwards of $150 million each for more of yesterday’s plane when what is on hand is sufficient and there is a need for so many other military items but they can’t be bought due to Tiffy sucking up money.
nhamptonWell the reason is simple there’s nothing else apart from the F-22 that’s on a comparable level…
Thanks for the laugh but can we be serious now.
nhamptonnhampton, I wont reply to you and help you destroy this thread further. Its like arguing with a mule, as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58
Having trouble debating the facts? Care to counter at least on thing I wrote or do you realize that you know I am right yet you hate to admit it.
nhamptonThis is the JAS 39 Gripen thread and AESAs from the same company, such as Erieye and Giraffe, is perfectly relevant. By the the way, do you know what country has chosen Sea Giraffe for some of its latest line of warships?
You, on the other hand, is obviously trolling.
Not for the last dozen or so posts. Get your head out of the sand it really doesn’t matter what they come up with. Sure they may get lucky and design AESA that is comparable with 3rd generation American designs on a shoe string budget. Sure they won’t run into any developmental or funding problems that push IOC well past 2012. Sure the Americans will not continue to develop their AESA radars. Sure all the selection panels will discount the Selex offering’s lack of maturity.
Yup the tooth fairy is coming too.
nhamptonNo matter what gizmo’s & modifications are done to an F-15, bottom line its still, well, an F-15…Like I mentioned a little while back for a metaphor, you can give an old 1970’s Jaguar XJS brand new electronics, suspension, brakes, interior, sat-nav, all the great things you could get, technically its very good, but its still NO Jaguar XKR of 2009…
Sorry, not sure who would want to buy an F-15SE?…
And that video….Ouch….Is that the best they can do?…
Well lets see. M2.5 speed. Extreme maneuverability. Excellent high altitude performance. Low RCS. Internal weapons carriage. Two seats, great range, huge payload. State of the art avionics and an AESA radar. About $100 million each.
Well anyone looking to buy an advanced 4.5 generation true multi role fighter.
The Japanese, S Koreans, Israelis, and Saudi Arabians immediately come to mind.
BTW, I guess they spent the money they saved on the video on capabilities.
nhamptonSorry Jackonicko you are just as guilty as nhampton of not comparing aplles-to-apples.
You are not comparing costs is the same years & disengenously applying more favorable later year exchange rates to earlier years costs.
Guilty of what? I was not the one who started with the comparisons. I am starting to think the Eurofighter mafia in this forum has an inferiority complex as they keep trying to drag the Raptor into discussions that have nothing to do with it.
nhamptonLoad of crap. If US radar would indeed be 15 years ahead, not a single non-US radar would ever sell. In the time of globalization there is not a single area of industry where any country is even 5 years ahead of others, let alone 15.
Have you noticed that all the non AESA equipped fighter competing in India and Brazil are scrambling to field AESA radars? No you would not have appreciated that subtlety would you.
The reason that nobody else has had Airborne AESA is two-fold:
1. They did not have to manufacuting ability for the small scale involved in the modules.
2. They did not have to money to research that ability.
Well done. You get it.
Add to that all the back end development (coding) work and the learning curve in discovering how to employ the AESA and you have a huge lead.
while the USA fitted all of 18 aircraft with radars . . . . Cost-effective? Or just a very expensive test programme? I think one can judge its success by how many were built.
Swerve! Here I thought you put me on ignore. What happened? Looking to be educated? Well here is the skinny. APG-63v2 is currently fitted to 18 very front line F-15Cs at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. In case you didnt know it these F-15s are part of a composite wing of F-15s and F-22s stationed much closer to where the Air Force thinks they would be needed should there be a problem in the Pacific. You see times have changed. The pac Rim is where all the action is nowadays. They only fitted 18 of them not because there is anything wrong with the v2, quite the contrary, advances by Raytheon have enabled them to improve upon the APG-63 v2 so that they now can offer the v3 which has v2 software coupled with the hardware advances that went into the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II’s AN/APG-79 AESA radar. It’s a simple question of constant product improvement and it further proves my point. The US has a huge head start both in EMD and also in actual use and the development of tactics to take advantage of the capabilities of the radar.
Oh one other point of clarification. Even though the APG-63 V2 was the world’s first AESA radar system to be operationally deployed in a fighter aircraft I do believe the APG-77 on the Raptor was first flown back in the mid 90s, hence 15 years.
Oh by the way we where discussing AESA fighter radars.
nhamptonIt includes all the support equipment etc. as well and that costs a lot. It’s not that you pay 140 mln $ just for the aircraft with its sub systems. This is the average cost for each aircraft including everything required to operate it and the development costs of the newer variants beyond T1. It also included the costs for setting up the production line. It’s not fly away cost as you claim. What you try to do is comparing Typhoons systems price against the fly away price of other aircraft to claim it is so much more expensive. It is expensive, yes but not that much if you compare like with like as Jacko said.
I agree its more than the airframe but so is flyaway cost. Flyaway is everything but development costs. In other words it is the price to build and field one unit of whatever. But again we are not talking about anything but Typhoon here so I don’t know what others keep trying to bring up other planes and other accounting methods unless they just want to troll.
At any rate my point stands. None of the significant development cost up until 1997 was included in the amount given. None of the later T3 development costs are included either. That’s a lot of money not being accounted for.
Is it worth the cost to keep buying what is in effect yesterday’s fighter given all the other pressing military needs? If you think that question is trolling then you have your head in the sand.
nhamptonIt was just an example nothing else, and yes I brought it up, but you went on comparing apples to oranges.
Well lets stick to Typhoon then shall we?
At that time no one had an idea what would be included into future variants as produced as part of tranche 2 or 3. We don’t even know what is part of T3, all of this has to be funded. It doesn’t include all development costs, but includes those for the variants in production or those which are under development. AFAIK the remaining development costs just covered T1 development up to the block 5 standard.
I agree. My point being that anyone telling you that Typhoon cost less than $150 million is either smoking crack or they just plain have their head in the sand. That is the salient point of the Defpro article. It costs the Germans and we can assume the other members in excess of $140 million dollars to buy each Typhoon with engines and whatever sensors that have been funded to date. It does not include all of the development costs.
Jack…..Wake up Jack. See, it’s not about Raptor. No mention here okay.
nhamptonAs for the nuclear UAVs, the manned aircraft have a simple electric (not electronic) heavy pull switch, which in conjunction with another physical safeguard (plastic cover of the switch), ensures that the nuclear payload remains in check. So, to close the electric circuit and therefore arm the nuke, a pilot must be fairly sure of what he’s doing, since you can’t overcome those mechanical obstacles, accidentally.
Poor Soda Boy making assumptions and turning out wrong. If the 1973 is your birth date then I have 11 years on you. I know full well how a manned bomber releases a weapon. But that is not at all what you wrote about now is it?
You wrote
But then again, guys with “joysticks” may get the ideas (Dr.Strangelove) and “take one, just in case” (and justify it with rapid response ability) on non-delivery flights…
Which to me reads like you would have someone do it on purpose. That has nothing to do with mechanical fail safes.
nhamptonJack! Good to hear from you Jack! Unfortunately your post is a bit off topic. Now I know you are the RAF’s keeper of the UK price myth but this is different Jack. This has to do with what the Germans paid for it. See it says:
In 1997 the German Bundestag approved a joint contract with Britain, Italy and Spain, as members of the Eurofighter consortium, to purchase 180 Eurofighters. According to the terms of the contract, however, the €14.6 billion German investment will be exhausted following the purchase of 143 aircraft.
Note the key words and numbers – Germany, Eurofighter, 180, 143, 14.6.
Nothing to do with NAO other than they tend to agree with the NAO 62 million number due to additional “capability” be added. Little things like weapons integration, IRST, helmet mounted sight, DAS. Nothing that would stop it from performing well at air shows though.
One last thing Jack. I was not the one that brought up Raptor. It is you tiffy fans that keep trying to make the comparison. Sorry but they play in different leagues Jack.
Which brings me to another part that I let pass with Scorpion. Note
In 1997 the German Bundestag approved a joint contract with Britain, Italy and Spain, as members of the Eurofighter consortium, to purchase 180 Eurofighters.
Note the date. If this money was to include development costs then how was EF developed prior to 1997? So no it DOES NOT include all development costs.
nhamptonRIP: NGB, F-22, C-17, F136, NG-UAS, AF1, AC-27J
most of these were rumored/released before, but now the proposed budget is officially out
Nothing is written in stone until Congress passes a budget and the President signs it into law. Congress can and does significantly modify the proposed DoD budget before they pass it. That said:
NGB: The way I read it it was an F-15E replacement. None is needed at this point. In fact once F-35s are fielded in numbers I would imagine the F-15Es will be converted into ANG interceptors. Before anyone goes on about range look at the range difference between a combat loaded F-15E and a combat loaded F-35A. Not much of a difference and JASSM will make up the difference. Besides , there is an awful lot of “black” money being spent on something.
F-22: A few more would be nice to have but againfor what reason other than a hedge against the F-35. Save the money, use it to make the F-35 program healthy, fully fund additional development of the existing F-22 fleet and fund upgrades to low mileage F-15s to keep them superior to any potential adversary’s aircraft.
C-17:Yes, more please. Killing production is dumb and I really don’t think Congress will let it happen.
F136: No brainer, kill it. F135 and it’s derivative have been trouble free. No need for this extravagance. Spend the money on more F-35s.
NG-UAS: Killing it is another dumb move. Development should continue to ensure continued dominance in this area.
AF1: Kill it. Nothing wrong with the current VC-25s. Very low mileage and impeccably maintained. Why waste money on something you don’t need.
AC-27J: Another dumb move. Should not be killed the Army is begging for intra theater transport. It makes no sense to kill this program.
nhamptonDevelopment costs are not covered by your 150 mln figure and, neither is support equipment. So your comparion lacks.
No, you where the one that brought up the Raptor comparison. I did not. You in fact went off on a tangent. But since you brought it up I thought we would keep going down that road.
1. Tiffy is not in the same league as the Raptor. Not even close.
2. Updated Eagles, Super Hornets and SU-30s are and none of them come close to costing $140million each.
3. The F-35 that reaches IOC in the 2012-2015 time frame will be head and shoulders above Tiffy in capability and utility. Even at $100 million a pop it will still be cheaper.
4. The numbers given for Raptor are based on building 20 a year and a production run of less than 200. Unit and flyaway costs would have been dramatically (like cheaper than Tiffy) if it where built in numbers anywhere near Tiffy’s production run.
Whats the point? Typhoon is 20 years too late and it is busting the defense budgets of the nations that build it. It is a fact that British soldiers have to borrow American equipment in Afghanistan due to the fact that the MOD doesn’t have the money to properly equip them. It is a fact that the UK government has done everything it could do to get out of buying more useless jets so that they would have money for other more pressing defense needs and all the the Tiffy cheerleaders here are happy that half of them are either going into storage or will be sold if the Saudis are kind enough to take them. That is the point.
Maybe something on topic:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n…mmitments.html
Indeed it is.
Sign In
