SintraI think they made a point about jammers being able to cut any missile/radar range advantage.
Also might want to consider any Russian fighter equipped with the ramjet R-77 – wonder what the official status of the project is.
Somewhere between criogenic preservation and death…
SintraThe limit ist the radio horizon!
Radio horizon in miles is the square root out (1.5 x height in feet) for VHF!
In 50000feet is the radio horizon 273 miles or 237nm away.
In 10000feet only 122 miles or 106 nm.UHF and higher (1.23 x sqr height in feet) is the distance in miles.
50000ft is the radio horizon 247ml or 214nm away.
10000ft is the radio horizon 110ml or 95nm!This is a physical law and no way to detect any thing beyond the horizon!
Absolutely correct.
SintraThey’re good enough that the F-22 can use it to que AIM-120s without ever firing up the APG-77.
The exact same capability exists in the RAFALE with the Spectra at least from late 2006 and was promised by Eurofighter GMBH almost a decade ago, there´s no confirmation if it´s already operational or not.
SintraLast I checked the UK was in Europe instead of the USA. But thats besides the point. According to Bill Sweetman the AN/ALR-94 can be used to geolocate emitters at ranges of up to 250 nm, um to me thats almost 5 times the range quoted in the latest supplement – which to me is dwarfing the DASS system. Id be really interested to which costs more, as the ALR is said to be the top piece of tech on the F-22.
OH, Bristol, UK, sorry about that (i´m really sorry, it wasnt meant to be agressive, but English is not my first language, not even my second one) 😮
Yes, i also do read AW, and Bill Sweetman, but you wont get a pin point accuracy at 250 NM with only one single RAPTOR and one single AN/ALR-94, there are physical limits to what you can detect and “pin point” at long ranges, the longer the range his the bigger the angular error gets, if you have several systems working at the same time that´s another story.
The key number in this his the “less than one degree” and not the range. The actual detection range of the DASS his several times bigger than the 100 km´s mentioned, but that will only give a broad “threat” direction of “X Degrees”.
The exact “stats” of the AN/ALR-94 are secret of course, but to have a real idea of the capabilities we would need to know the angular precision of those “250 NM”. Untill we have that kind of number a direct comparison with other systems his speculative, not that i do have any doubts that the AN/ALR-94 his a superb piece of equipment.
Cheers 🙂
SintraI dont get what your talking about when you say having the F-22 as a sensor is dumb? The point is, it is a sensor and according to reports an excellent one at that. For example after reading the latest Eurofighter Typhoon supplement from AIR International – they give a range figure for the tiffys DASS system against IADS, and comparing that to the AN/ALR-94, it is dwarfed by a factor of 5 times in range.
Then there must two diferent supplements, one for the USA and another one for Western Europe.
The one that i have read says “It is capable of making quick searches for electromagnetic emitters and then locating them through sequential triangulation, giving angular accuracies of better than one degree, and with a range in excess of 54 NM (100 km´s).”
Every document (public of course, the classified ones might say something completely diferent) that i´ve read about the AN/ALR-94 puts the detection range for the same (less than) one degree in the exactly same “ball park” that was quoted to the DASS system. Of course that you can have much longer ranges with the DASS, but then the angular accuracy drops, and thats a problem that any system will face, be that the DASS, the AN/ALR-94, or the one in the “Milleniun Falcon”.
Forget the “dwarfing”…
Cheers
SintraCrap. I admit i missed that. Now who can give an explanation on the discrepancy between the 58 mil and 80 mil figure? Or does the 80 mil figure include other unknown goods and services? Which is again unlikely, considering the $86.6 mil figure just under it should be that with extra goods (spares etc) and services.
You can find what the 80 mil covers in page 44 and 45 of the document. It´s basically the construction of the fighters and “non recurring costs” that relates to the setting up of the assembly line.
SintraThis 58.7$ million it´s just a number that some Lock Mart Commercial quoted to an Australian news agency… Nothing more, nothing less. It´s not a “fixed, contracted price”.
Tom Burbage and the rest of Lock Mart have been trying HARD for the last two years for the nine partners to sign a massive multi year production contract, the problem his that they couldn´t offer a “fixed price” and no one his going to sign that type of document.
And now they have a VERY FRIGHTNING situation to face in less than a year, that´s Barack Obama sitting in the White House. If that happens the Pentagon Budget his going to get slashed, and the biggest Pentagon Program his…
So they have to convince the Partners to sign a contract with heavy fees in case of future “Partner droping out” (the same kind of contract that was signed by the Eurofighter Typhoon partners that garantees the Tranche3 production), and they have untill the end of this year to do so.
This is going to be a very interesting 2008…
Cheers
SintraHere we go again…
From the 2009 USAF Budget:
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1096/26859944bi4.jpg
Page 43
SintraThirded! Excellent post, and very good conclusions, notably in terms of the emphasis on actual capabilities (weapons fits etc…) rather than assumptions that speed is a defence.
Dam Good Job.
SintraWell from what I gather its in the public domain and is available, it shouldn’t be a problem for those used to ‘googling’.
It does show some interesting rangeloadoutspeeds for the Typhoon including supercruise and even quotes the F-22 fuel fraction as .30.
I must check out the claim the air to surface fuel fraction of the Typhoon beats the F-35!!!, (must be with external tanks..)
Cheers
That caught my attention too!
Overly optimistic these EADS “Guys and Gals”! Too much optimism actually.
Cheers
SintraSo the question is:-
Is the briefing that the Norwegians released classified/restricted or for public release or not??.
Cheers
It was classified when the document was presented to Mrs Kristin Krohn Devold. Then some medium level Norwegian MOD bureaucrat had the ideia to go public… On the Norwegian MOD site…
And it got “declassified”.
But that document (and the Gripen/F35 equivalent) dont have nothing “particulary sensitive”.
SintraWynne, Moseley Sacked in USAF Shakeup
Jun 5, 2008
By Amy Butler and David A. FulghumThe top civilian and uniformed officer of the U.S. Air Force are being sacked in a Pentagon-led shake-up of the armed service after a slew of bad news including nuclear weapons handling mistakes, alleged favoritism in awarding a Thunderbirds promotional contract, and perceived intransigence over providing unmanned aircraft for overseas combat ISR.
Defense Secretary Gates is slated to speak at 4 p.m. (EST) at the Pentagon, but reaction to the apparent firings of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Gen. T. Michael Moseley, chief of staff, already was emerging across Washington and elsewhere.
“This can’t be good news for any of us,” said one Lockheed Martin official with insight into the F-22 program. “I was completely surprised and nobody I know knew anything about it beforehand,” the official noted.
“Any rookie auditor would smell something fishy around the Air Force contract for the public relations work around the Thunderbirds. And the smell went all the way to the top,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “What is so encouraging is that Secretary Gates is walking the walk on accountability. This is the second time he has demanded removal of top command after a failure of leadership,” she added.
“It is refreshing to see Secretary Gates holding the Air Force to a higher standard of responsibility and accountability,” echoed Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight watchdog group.
Gates in March 2007 fired then-Army Secretary Francis Harvey and several Army officers were disciplined over wounded-personnel medical treatment issues.
Indeed, his criticism of the institutional military has been increasingly shrill since an April 21 speech at the Air War College in which he said the services were not moving aggressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield.
“I’ve been wrestling for months to get more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets into the theater,” the Pentagon chief said at the time. “Because people were stuck in old ways of doing business, it’s been like pulling teeth.”
On May 13, he sharpened his criticism of the Air Force and Navy in identifying a “tendency toward what might be called ‘Next-War-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict.” He criticized a budget process that results in the production of fewer, more expensive, weapon systems.
Background conversations with retired USAF officials indicate they’ve known that Moseley and Wynne were in deepening trouble that began with them “pushing back” on Gates vision of focusing more on the Army and Marine Corps, which are being stretched by prolonged ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while de-emphasizing the Navy and Air Force.
There were four issues that gave Gates ammunition for faulting them for lax leadership, the officials say. The charge of improper influencing a contract involving the Thunderbirds, the increasing pressure from Congress about last-minute changes in requirements on the replacement tanker program, disagreement over continuing F-22 production and the 2007 incident when nuclear weapons were unknowingly carried from Minot Air Force Base, S.D., to Barksdale AFB, La.
Moseley’s replacement likely will be Gen. Duncan McNabb, Air Force vice chief. Yet, Gen. John Corley, Air Combat Command chief, also is popular with Gates. Wynne’s deputy is a temporary replacement so Gates could push through someone from within his staff since it is expected to be difficult to convince an outsider to go through the congressional approval process for such a short term of service.
It is also unclear how long Wynne and Moseley would serve. Air Force sources and an aerospace and defense industry source could confirm only that their resignations would be announced imminently.
USAF Photo of Wynne (left) and Moseley: Tech. Sgt. Cohen A. Young
SintraBlue colored…check it, although cant interpret the color meaning, as i said before i think is a degraded scan, not showing all the RCS, these things arent shown on power point presentations…
They actually are when the audience his a defence minister and the top brass of the respective Air Force.
There was a bit of a “BRUUAAAÁ” when the Norwegian MOD went public with several PPT presentations without prior warning to LM, Saab and Eurofighter.
SintraI’m not sure that this has anything to do with RCS. It looks more like an IR signature display to me.
If i´m not mistaken that his indeed a Typhoon RCS scater study and it can be found in the Eurofighter presentation to the Norwegian fighter contest.
Cheers
SintraIn fact, the F3 will be a base standard. The F3 uses PESA.
But for export, the AESA will be fitted. In fact, in early 2012, every Rafale should receive AESA.
Even the RAFALE M F1?! that´s new!
Cheers
Sign In
