Getting back to Typhoon , does anyone know which are the US items on it, that might in theory be subject to US opposing the sale ( or sale of spare parts etc .)?

Thanks alot.:)

Last time (Saudi Arabia), it was the MIDS LVT and some fooling around with GPS intelectual property. The Indians are not going to use the MIDS-LVT, so…
Probably not much could be done to oppose the sale.

Recently i have been arguing that the Eurocanards factored in RCS reduction measures at a relatively late stage in their design (perhaps during the late 80s/early 90s), when the value of American research and designs was apparent.

However, it occurs to me that European powers knew the value of RCS reduction in fighter designs long before that. I am aware of the German “glow worm project”, and I believe the RAF had access to the F117A before it was in the public sphere (?).

So when did the various European countries start to actively think about Stealth?

Mr Malaya

I am old enough to have read in the late eighties severall articles in the specialised press about the signature reduction efforts of the two european design teams. By 1987 Dassault had a team involved in signature (visual, radar and IR) reduction with the RAFALE, by 1988 (or eighty nine) in one of severall articles in Air iNTERNATIONAL about fighter design it was specificaly mentioned that one of the eight (if i remember correctly) design dpt´s of Eurofighter was tasked with signature reduction.

The manned stealth option research was spearheaded in Europe by MBB in 1981 with the Lampyridae, by 1985 they had enough data to build a full scale RCS test mockup, and coincidentaly they were capable to make some estimates of what could be a supersonic, 9g manned, stealth fighter, the conclusion was that with the available technology (we are talking of the mid eighties here) to have a decent range, speed, agility and a handfull of internal missiles, it was going to be bloody big and very, very, very expensive (this story was told Bill Sweetman a few years ago).

The British were offered the F-117 at a very early stage of the project, Ronald Reagan himself described the aircraft to Maggie Tatcher and if the popular story is true, he was a bit disapointed by her reaction (something like “you have an invisible aircraft, so what?”). At a certain point Bill Clinton made similar gestures to the UK with the F-22.

The Typhoon force WILL comprise 5 squadrons, indeed.

I contest the 16 figure, though, as the old Tornado GR4 after the cuts is going down to 5 squadrons, 96 planes and 18 deployable planes at high readiness.

Even if the Typhoon fleet in 2019 goes down to 107 planes with the retirement of the Tranche 1 as planned, there will still be 5 squadrons capable to deploy abroad around 20 planes.

To which we might add 4 hypothetical FAA squadrons, that operating to RN guidelines can be deployed for 660 days in every 36 months without breaching the guidelines.

RAF guideline is 140 days in 12 months. 4 months deployed on operations followed by 16 months of break.
RN deployment guidelines are that “up to 60% of any 36 months period can be spent deployed”.

Deployability would GROW, not shrink. Indeed, the limit would not be so much in the crews but in the machine’s mainteinance, if the F35 goes navy.

For the RAF it might be bad, but for the UK it would be good.

And then again, yes. The RAF has been downsized with axe chops in the last decades… But this applies to all three services. What should the RN say if we reason that way??? It had over 600 ship in the late 50s!

The British MOD would completely mad to have a RAF with 5 JF´s SQN´s and an FAA with 4 FJ´s jets SQN´s, for UK PLC it would be nothing short of a disaster.
Duplication of every structure needed to deploy and maintain combat jets across two very small forces… Sheer lunacy.
If the number of combat jets shrinks to such a low that it becames impossible to maintain two separate forces, them those combat jets belongs in the RAF, period.
Thats precisely whats happening and strangely the MOD does agree.

Right, very nice photo. Is that a laser designator pod, we can see under the belly ?

Yes.

i.e electronically steered antenna ESA
i.g mechanically steered antenna (MSA?)…

Which mean in a mechanically steered antenna, the “physical” aperture (size) is critical since it’s going to affect the effective aperture (the real capability of the radar). I really don’t know how to put it any other way.

Which is why ESA are better than “MSA”, and AESA are better than PESA because AESA have a better ability to manipulate beam widths than PESA, with each T/R modules been independant and more energy’s effective.

So again, if you compare a land based AESA radar with a a/c AESA radar, of course the bigger will win, but when comparing the size of a/c noses, you can’t say that one has a better radar because that one has a bigger nose. Period.
And unless you are comparing fighters against AWACs platforms, you cannot say that one has a clear advantage above the other because even if it has a slightly bigger nose it wont be that much “bigger” to make such a difference.
Then because Gallium Arsenide Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuit (GaAs MMIC) effectiveness tend to degrade with heat, too many modules working at full capacity (so the hugest possible amount of energy) without a robust (so bulky) cooling system is only going to degrade your radar making it more difficult to detect and track over long distances (losing sensibility).
So again, with AESA technology, energy (for distances) and angles is what matter the most along with sotfware of course not size.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_%28antenna%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directivity
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-aesa.htm
http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

If the number of TRM modules and power output dont have a dam thing to do with the detection range of an airborne radar, i guess that the Mitsubishi Melco J/APG-1, the Selex Vixen 500 and the APG-77 have more or less identical tracking capability.

Are you aware that the energy output of an AESA radar are the combined output of the TRM´s modules?
That means that if everything being equal, if you have a radar with 50% more TRM´s, that same radar will have 50% more transmitter power, and just a small look at the radar equation will make it clear how important that diference his.
On top of that you have mentioned another important aspect, signal degradation by heat, and has you have pointed out the answer is a “robust (so bulky) cooling system”, and in order to achieve that you need two things, space and electricity, the last one, on a fighter aircraft is produced by the engines and has a general rule, if everything else being equal, the engine with most thrust will be able to produce more power then/eg electricity, guess wich of those two aircrafts has more “estate room” and wich uses the most powerful engines. Yes, you have guessed.
The only way that a theoretical CAPTOR-E would have an identical range to the RBE-2 AESA would be severe incompetence by the EADS and Selex design teams.

And by the way, i am not exactly a Koop fan (in many ways quite the oposite), but in AESA radars he has quite an academical resumé, so go again at the APA site and read the multiple comparisons that they have made on AESA radars, you will find out why the old adage “size matters” (and the number of TRM modules) his quite true in this day and age.

Sorry, my mistake, the Elta isn’t yet operational (I got carried away), still is considered among one of the best.
@Buitreaux : I really love that rafale…

Then again I encourage all of you to review what you know about radar (a little wiki might be good), size doesn’t matter so much for ESA radars because what matter is the quality of the transmitter modules. Of course the more you can have the better for reliability, multi-tasking and anti jamming.
Then whether you use a mecanical or electronic antena, the reveiver is always going to detect the radio waves before the sender (since the signal has to come back), which mean it doesn’t matter the range, you will always be detected far beyong the effective and “useful” range of your radar and weapon systems. Its like throwing a ball on a wall. The wall will always “detect” the ball before it comes back to you, assuming that you are close enough to receive the ball, since after touching the wall it’s going to lose energy (with radio signals and refraction it’s worse).
Having a ESA antena is like been able to “catch” the ball with you eyes (in fact the only factor is the width of the angle your radar can look at, wich is why the captor-e wants to be able to move the angle of the antena in order to have a better look, while having a mechanical antena is like having to spread your arms (like footballer protecting a goal) in order to make sure to “catch” the incoming ball (so of course the wider and bigger the better). To say that size matter is like saying I see better than you because I’ve bigger eyes…
So if you are using you a/c only in AtA mode for exemple 1000 modules are far to many for the job, which is why the true advantage of ESA technology is to allow the superposition of different modes (which is why the Rafale currently has PESA and not RDY 3 or 4).

Mildave

There are some seriously well informed chaps in this forum, and you would be well advised to follow your own statement “to review what you know about radar”, because you are wrong on almost all accounts.

Personally I am a bit dissapointed that the IAF didn’t go with the F/A-18IN in this competition but when you consider the possible restrictions that come with the deal, I can understand why.

In my opinion only the EF-2000 would have a significant advantage in terms of raw capability, but that is presuming its AESA radar is delivered on time (and can match the APG-79) and the fighter finally has all of its long-delayed A2G capabilities.

Yet the Rafale deserves some credit. Presuming it also gets its AESA radar it will probably be pretty comparable to the Super Hornet, including the price tag. It may well be the best middle ground between the Su-30MKI and Hal Tejas. I could be mistaken here however, for some reason I have the habit of often assuming the EF-2000 is a heavier and larger fighter than it actually is.

I don’t think the Gripen NG ever had a chance at winning due to the threat it could have posed to continued development of the Hal Tejas.

Some credit? Yet?!
Presuming it gets its AESA?!
The production AESA radars are being produced now, the first operational Rafales with an AESA will be delivered next year.