SignDo you have a source stating explicitly that the RBE2 emits radio-electrical waves ? Because if it’s not written like that on a spec sheet we have to ASSume it doesn’t.
i heard rafale have good “stealth” modes maybe this is one of those 😀
Signsupercruise in the cold environment of Sweden at a somewhat lower altitude perhaps ?
Temperature is kind of konstant all over the globe at 28000ft.
SignWell, I don’t know at which stage the Selex aesa radar is so far, but one thing is certain : All the rafale produced in 2011 will get out the production line fitted with an active RBE-2.
The brazilian government has stated that the final choice will be political. That doesn’t mean that the technical evaluation was faulted.
Raising doubts about the gripen NG systems maturity and SAAB projected operating costs is a matter basic technical caution and I see no polical interference here.
😀
from being the later is now the best? 30000 pages is now a fue 100? and pointing towards rafale.. thats political. dont be so silly. open your eyes..
Sign@scorpion82
I am not saying that selex has no experience in AESA fighter radar. Just that they started latter with less funding and without the stable frame of an existing inline fighter radar like the RBE2 to gain more relevant experience and to manage the knowledge curb. With a stable RBE2 program and continuous development for the different rafale standard you certainly have a better exerince and knowledge management than scattered skills on different other radar programs. Diverting some knowledge ressources from other programs is not as easy as you would think as these prgrams have their own deadlines. So yes there are synergies but there is an inertia.
Given the clear political will with the road map rafale and the funding that goes with it there is no wonder Thales is a few years ahead. I dont think that selex is able to procure an operational aesa radar in less than one month !
PS : according to Thales and Air et Cosmos it is the pressure from dassault and the french government who lead to the withdrawal of Thales help for AESA radar on gripen.
And I am aware of the different phase of the program. The rafale flew with a US made aesa antenna for the rbe2 in 2003 to start software development.
gripen programme did have a thales radar, but did not install it, after selex provide a more suited radar for the program. This was not only due to the political fact(dead end). It was most part due to they did not want to provide only frontend (thales).
If Selex couldnt provide a frontend in the time, the thales radar would have been installed in the demo aircraft, but not in the future E/F due to political reasons and due it wasnt part of the deal.
For your info NORA 1, 2, 3 was ericsson/raytheon co-ops and i dont think these projects have any problems with competence.
Raytheon was ofcourse also asked to provide the future gripen frontend, but Selex has choosen.
SignWe are not saying Selex has no experience but less relevant experience than Thaled is AESA fighter radar.
When you already have a frontline fighter ESA product for ten years (and AESA EW) and testing AESA fighter radar since 2003 you have of course a bigger pool of engineers which have gain relevant experience on this matter. The people who started to work on the RBE2 PESA and that are now working on the AESA since several years had a much more efficient learning/knowledge curb.
Selex have all the skills necessary to make an AESA fighter radar no doubt. But they started latter, with less direct funding and very probably a much smaller pool of engineers with direct experience in fighter AESA radar although some mihgt have worked on AESA radar for other application just like Thales.
Anyone who has an actual professional experience in the industry would understand this. Knowledge curb and experience is aquired with time when people grow in a project.
The gripen NG is, as the brazilian eval leaks reveal, much further from a mature operationnal stage that SAAB would like to advertise. It takes more than a few slide shows and sound impressive bullet points to be credible. There is a demonstrator…But it is perhaps not as close to become a mature products that some wanted to believe.
This is true to SAAB EDS former ericsson microwave(backend) and selex as well, many Aesa and fighter products in the past, thales doesnt have any upper hand..so once again, stop this bullish.
Ericsson has NORA 1, 2, 3 and M-AESA, even more projects that cant be discuest, on AESA FIGHTER and also a very good base on the PS-05A backend.
brazilian evaliation is faulted after political INTERFERENCE.
THALES have spent alot av time and money, but i see that as weaker competence to begin with.
SignWow! this concept would fit a future BVR UCAV platform (smaller and efficient) 😀
Signwhat would i fire in 3mach+ speeds?
Signnow, Rafale faans have political air under its wings. And suddenly Gripen demo isnt a flying platform(powerpoint?!?!!) and selex and Saab EDS have never made a production AESA antenna?!? they both have several mature products!
the bullsh. have to stop!?
and things like
It took ten years and 1 billion of investement to make a mature and working AESA with the RBE2 ESA
Does this really make Saab/Selex look bad? isnt it Thales that looks bad? and still not in production?
SignUCAV in the sense that you’re thinking of won’t be a practical reality till the 2020s. The systems just aren’t mature enough yet, and you still need a man in the loop for many things. These 4th Gen fighters will still have to face 5th Gen fighters, and at great disadvantage. It’s like arguing that piston engine aircraft are much cheaper to keep using than going to jets.
well i dont really believe in generation bullsh.. stealth is one thing(x-band), and onboard systems another. 2020 is soon enough. You dont buy a 5 gen for a 10 year period. 4 gen are not that behind 5 gen. especially with systems updates.
SignNo – the F/A-18E/F is going to be around for quite some time.
Becasue reality is quite different from your wet dreams.
In your dreams.
Not as fast as you dream. If it were it would have happend decades ago.
AKA you are full of crap.
Obsolete meaning 4th (4.5) generation when 5th generation is here. Just as 4th generation fighters made 3rd generation fighters obsolete…
While A little on the expensive side (although similar to the Rafale &/or Typhoon) the F-15SE IS a good ‘alternative’ for those who won’t be cleared to recieve the F-35 for quite a while yet.
besides being such a nice guy, your not thinking, i mean, thinking out side the boxes.
why upgrade to “5 gen” when you can have the same systems to a fraction of the cost in a your 4.5 gen fighter?
standoff weapons and cruise missiles can also make those high threat scenarios..
UCAV is on the doorstep whether you like it or not. they are much better complement to a 4.5 gen than a 5 gen is to a AF.
What im saying, if you have a 4 gen fighter, theres no need for 5 gen fighters. you can upgrade youre 4 gen fighter with new avionics cheap. and then go for UCAVS.
Signwell, we see about that, it may be for uk, and obsolite means upgradible? 😉
SignA: An AI for UCAV that is clever, flexible, and reliable enough to replace the brain of a well-trained fighter pilot for doing every fighter’s job, is still nonexistent and unforeseeable ~ That’s the problem.
faster than you think…
A: One simple question ~ Which JSF foreign partener / customer has finally decided to give up JSF and chosen the updated “4th gen” as an alternative instead ??
An alternative with no customer’s support is not a real alternative. Even after so many troubles have happened, every JSF foreign parteners still decide to be stayed with the project means that the JSF foreign customers (airforces and navies) believe the capability of F-35 is very necessary for their future missions. That’s all.
none, but its an alternative and the rest of the world got it as alternative beside PAKFA.
Signi think the canopy makes it a 5th gen but lets say pilot optional
there is a lot between a scale demonstrator and 300 units, following normal R&D etc doing it on the cheap, 50+ billion euro’s and 2040+ ?here is a usa pic of it from the 90’s p39
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf
thanks!
SignSign, your enthusiasm for the Gripen apart I think that you don’t get the point and that you are not aware about what it takes to operate an aircraft fleet. The 3000 $ figure might well be correct, but it won’t include all costs. Most likely only fuel and other consumables. Already spare parts can easily cost ten thousands of $ (or whatever currency you choose to use). Averaging this can easily add costs quite a lot. If you then add the costs for maintaining simulators, power supplies, hydraulic test stands, ground equipment for maintaining the software, for testing equipment of the aircraft, personal cost etc. than you’ll get entirely different figures. Many of the costs differ from customer to customer, the average payment for the soldiers differs from country to country, different support deals and logistic chains, running an entire AB etc. all this costs quite a lot, but those costs are variable. I’m pretty sure the operating costs claimed by Saab/Flygvapnet are the average costs for the aircraft operations only, excluding personal or maintenance costs for running a base etc.
i understand what you are saying, and as i´ve been saying all along is this is the way SwAF calculate. SwAF always refers to f-16 operating costs so hopefully the dont compare apples and pears..
SignI doubt that the Gripen NG will get cheaper to operate, it is heavier and has a more powerful and thereby thirsty engine which alone will increase the fuel costs. The AESA radar might reduce the operating costs, whether there will be any significant savings due the new engine is questionable. Anyway I doubt this figure includes everything necessary to operate the aircraft from front to end. But feel free to believe what you want.
higher peak power does not mean higher specifc fuel. And the LCC cost of the engine itself is a big factor. its at least 15-20 years of engine development between RM12 and F414G, and isnt just power output.
read this and you see what i mean.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/f414.htm
The operating cost, as i said, is a design requirement for SwAF and vill be validated. If saab cant manage that, they will pay with big penalties.
Sign In
