Nice, does that statement refer to the fact that the NG will have this GaN radar from the start? I ask because there was some confusion about it in the Gripen NG thread.

All I can say is that the only time SAAB mention AESA and specify technology/materials they specify it as GaN. As I already stated, It can only be seen as very likely that they go for GaN from the start but since production hasnt started yet they may hold GaAs as the fallback option “just in case”.

Without much knowledge or confirmation let alone a mention of timelines.

Well, we can only hold it as very likely since there is no other project funded in USAF where fighters will be equiped with GaN based AESAs. OTOH we have Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen projects that are funded and all of them are very likely to include GaN based systems. Lets say Gripen misses the deadline, then we still have Eurofighter and Rafale upgrades…

Current US GaN Product application list is well known..AMDR, 3DELRR, Gator NG, Next Generation Jammer, Space fence are the ones that are substantial programs (fully funded ). In the case of the AMDR (Dual Band GaN Based AESA Radar) and Next Generation Jammer (GaN Based system as well) the vendor downselect has been made and the next project phase has begun. Both Raytheon and Northrop have concluded extensive demonstration programs (prototype demonstrators) of their 3DELRR solution ( Raytheon is offering GaN solution and Northrop as usual (like the GATOR) is offering a GaA solution that can be easily upgraded to GaN Modules as their costs are brought down) and a downselect is expected in the next few months.

http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1842409&highlight=

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226965[/ATTACH]

Raytheon has concluded a customer demonstration of its ground-based prototype radar being developed for the US Air Force’s (USAF) Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR) programme.
Besides tracking targets of opportunity and manoeuvring tactical aircraft, the 3DELRR prototype also successfully demonstrated its ability to integrate into the air force’s next-generation Command and Control (C2) node.
Raytheon’s 3DELRR prototype is a C-band Gallium Nitride (GaN)-based radar, and is capable of helping soldiers to accurately detect, identify and track a range of objects at great distances at an affordable total ownership cost.
Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems business 3DELRR programme director Andrew Hajek said the company’s 3DELRR solution features high level of system availability, addresses the customer’s requirements, and most importantly is affordable to purchase, own and operate.
“For example, as a DoD-recognised industry leader in GaN, Raytheon is able to capitalise on efficiencies and reduce costs in unique ways,” Hajek said.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsraytheon-completes-customer-demonstration-of-3delrr-prototype

C-band is not fighter radars. If you look at the Selex-paper you will see that C-band GaN modules are ready for full scale production in 2014-2015 while X-band lags about a year.

Either way, systems wont reach IOC unles they are ordered. This is not a d*ck measuring contest on whos best, it’s just looking at the likelyhood of fielding the most capable system at IOC and at given date.

Not only the extra cost, but from what has been written, the moving plate did not do much for the LO requirement either, LMA and NG basically based their hardware on the requirements and the conops which rely on multi directional SA through the MADL (not different from the Gripen i suppose)

MADL is good at shorter range, but one has to account for the lacking resolution in a system where the sensors have fish eye lenses… It is obvious that they chose a simpler solution, which is logical since the F35 isnt designed as a dogfighter/air superiority fighter. It’s a strike fighter.

You are again getting it backwards. GaN is not a TECHNOLOGY for technology’s sake. It enables a capability. Northrop were able to meet the performance requirements without it..Until and unless the USAF or any other customer willing to pony up the cash wishes for a sensor capability that would stress the current technology base for the radar, Northrop will not bother with switching from the proven, cost effective GaA solution even though they are producing substantial quantities (and will be ) of GaN TR modules for other applications. Northrop needn’t spend its own money to bring Apg-81 to GaN standard because their GaN capability is being developed outside of that through the various programs that not only promise huge R&D funding but also procurement $$. Based on the work they are doing they can simply switch whenever required (technology is being refined through other investment programs)..They are also selling a very large number of fighters with the existing hardware..

I have never stated that it is. Let me quote myself.

The reason one has to regard the european radars as superior is simple. They use more modern technology (in itself irrelevant since more modern isn’t necessarily better) that offers much higher power output (very important for a radar) as well as better amplification of the signals (also important). This is why GaN is so interesting and why the european radars will be better and the difference in potential between GaAs and GaN is one generation.

The fact that they fit it on moving a moving dish also makes the difference in scan sector gigantic (+70% horizontal) giving the pilots better capabilities in A2A. (Ref Gimbal turn)

So surely the F35 will still have the advantage in seeing the others at longer ranges/being able to lock at longer ranges, thanks to its lower signature.

The F35 doesnt need GaN based radars, and due to the power shortage issues it is good to wait with it until cooling and psu can make use of the extra power output.

SAAB has, pretty much everyone else is doing the GaA and for all we know that may be the direction SAAB heads once more is known about its plans. A switch from GaA to GaN on the F-35 would be a small upgrade in terms of significance and cost, as the industrial cost to establish GaN would not be required to be paid for by the F-35 program. But you do not go out and get a capability if it ain’t required, you’d rather pay for something that IS. For Selex and SAAB the Gripen NG may be the enabler of key GaN technology and industrial setup for future GaN based applications, for the DOD the F-35 is not. The AMDR, NGJ, 3DELRR, Gator NG, Space Fence are !

It’s a small upgrade to change the antennas in the radar yes, but you need enough power and cooling for it. Basically one can amp up the power threfold with current GaN based systems. Will the PSU and cooling allow that? No. So the F35 is not likely to be able to make good use of it in its current configuration and because of that it’s just an unnecessary cost.

And you are right on the money there. The Eurocanards need GaN while the F35 doesnt.

BIO, since I have brought it up before I know that you have heard about ttm.

It doesnt matter if NG or Raytheon have the best research or what ever. If the European manufacturers are ahead in TTM (as seems to be the case) and work with a more agile delivery process (as also seems to be the case) then what they are fielding in 2018 will be ahead.

I think NG and Raytheon very well may be ahead of Selex and Thales, but due to a more agile procurement system they will beat NG and Raytheon to the finish line. And in the end that is what counts. If the F35 would have reached its original 2008 IOC then sure, the radar would have been well ahead of the competition. Due to delays the buyers are reluctant to change too much because every failure means longer delays in a system that seems to be 8-10 years behind schedule.

If NG or Raytheon got a contract to start manufacturing of 200 GaN based AESAs on a swashplate then they could easily do it in 2016. But there is no order while there is for the Europeans. GaAs is a fallback solution if the GaN production isnt mature (but it is on track).

Why do you think the industry competes in TTM and agile development? The answer is simple. It is because agile development/production gives shorter TTM. Shorter TTM makes it possible for a company that lags in R&D to field products on par with or ahead of the competition just because they are faster to the finish line. Raytheon and NG OTOH are ahead in R&D and have a huge production capacity meaning that they are the only choice for a project like the F35. For better or worse.

And considering the power supply problems in the F35 it is good that they didnt include a GaN based AESA from the start.

EDIT: To make an example so simple that you must understand it.

If you make a superior cake that takes 3 hrs to complete and 6 hrs to deliver then all I have to do is copy your work (lets call it lagging 1 or 2 hrs) and shorten delivery time by the same amount to stay on par with you on delivering the best cakes in the world at any given time.

Do you see how TTM is important now and why all your “arguments” where irrelevant?

Well apart from our usual “battles” on internet, he seems really interested.
Hard to be more specific, but googling Mr Sylvain Delage may help…

Noted an added to reading list 🙂

Yeah, show me how the Apg-77, apg-79 and apg-81 are crap…compared to the european counterparts that barely exist in numbers..Before you bring up the rotating antenna on some of the euro AESA’s I’ll like to point out that in the case of the F-35’s APG-81 it was considered a reasonable tradeoff for lower maintenance cost, and better LO…Show me how the NGJ is going to be crap compared to its european counterpart (is there even one?) and show me how the AMDR and other GaN based projects are any less compared to anything going on in europe. Having an R&D base, spending over decades and using that to build up “solid” industrial capacity that not only delivers a “better-than-asked for” performance but at very competitive cost COUNTS for a lot, when compared to decent R&D (not anywhere close the no. of projects across the pond) with tiny production numbers..At the end of the day its the technology that you show up with, and not the one thats in your lab.

APG77 is built in 185 (?) units. Roughly the same as ES-05 will be.

But should i remind you that it was you, not me, who claimed that production numbers equal better performance? If anything you just provided a perfect example of the opposite with the APG 77.

The reason one has to regard the european radars as superior is simple. They use more modern technology (in itself irrelevant since more modern isn’t necessarily better) that offers much higher power output (very important for a radar) as well as better amplification of the signals (also important). This is why GaN is so interesting and why the european radars will be better and the difference in potential between GaAs and GaN is one generation.

The fact that they fit it on moving a moving dish also makes the difference in scan sector gigantic (+70% horizontal) giving the pilots better capabilities in A2A. (Ref Gimbal turn)

NGJ may very well be excellent, but it will be fielded when the competition already flies with similar GaN based jammer capability integrated.

That’s all. The US stuff is good, but ttm is not.

The public is not going to learn about existing communications systems in Gripen that may have backdoors. They know that the USA spies on opposing countries (eg Russia). Since Snowden’s revelations they know that the USA also spies on its allies. If the USA spies on the countries to which it is allied, logic says that it will be even more likely to spy on independent countries (eg Switzerland).

The latest poll I read showed that the majority of voters were opposed to Gripen being acquired. Ditching a Swiss firm in favour of an American one reduces the industrial benefits to Switzerland. That’s a vote loser. Appointing a US firm undermines security. That is another vote loser.

As things stand with the voting public, the Gripen deal will be rejected. That position needs to be turned round – more votes in favour are needed, not less.

I agree with the point that a US system undermines offset/tech transfer. But that it would be less secure because its us made is just utter BS. As has been proven before Russia also spies on everyone and recently they dropped their own wiretaping of estonian politicians as well as from insie the EU parliament.

But to be frank, this whole scare tactic is an insult to the intelligence of the Swiss voters. The economic argument OTOH is probably the first serious argument the naysayers have had.

But anyways. Its up to the people and we will see how it goes. When is the vote due?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140330/DEFREG01/303300010/Report-Spying-Fears-Plague-Swiss-Fighter-Deal

Mmmm… Unless the Swiss firm concerned was not up to the job, this looks like a stupid move by SAAB. If Gripen loses by a small percentage in the referendum on May 18th, this move could be the reason.

All this talk about backdoors in military equipment and never any actual proof that it has been used. Sure, Snowden did prove that OS usually had backdoors as well as routers… but these are closed source solutions.

Also, considering that the FA18 they currently use is all out American with the link 16 I have to call the bluff on this one. Either their current FA18 fleet has backdoors in everything from the radar to datalinks (and probably Russia knows about them) making the aircraft useless OR its just fud from a sour loser in the tender.

If SAAB allows full access to the software (as they do) then this isis a non issue. It is clearly targeting the voters/public

I had stated that smaller/newer components allow for less power and less heat in order to generate the same RF energy.

That is correct and utterly irrelevant. Just like you wouldnt buy a new phone today with functionality like a Nokia 3210 and better 1 hr extra talking time. Sure it is an improvement, but you wouldnt buy it.

If you have a radar that sends 1xWatts of RF energy using 2xWatts of power. Then install new, smaller components that are 10% more efficient. Now you have a radar that sends 1xWatts of RF energy using only 1.8xWatts of power.

How is that not living in the real world?

The example is funnier than you might have thought when you wrote it.

Tell me, why would I want to “upgrade” my radar, ie buy a new one from you with either no improvement in performance or a range increase of 2,7%. Since my original radar for my Wunderwaffe 2000 only could spot the sphere at 50km, why would I buy a new radar that gives me a 1,11^0,25 = 2,6% better range. I could in other words see the sphere at 50*1,026 = 51,3km… I need a better upgrade. I could easily sacrifice 0,01% in acceleration speed if you instead packed more antennas and more power in there. And while you are at it… I want a more powerful engine.

Now that is an upgrade, and it just happens to be more in line with reality.

Regarding the radar… you do understand that antenna gain/lobe α are different as well?

Btw, how did you get 2,5 to “roughly twice” while 2,9 is “roughly four times more”? Where did three go?

Jokes aside though, the difference between the original N001 and Irbis are pretty huge in every single way. The Irbis is actually a pretty decent radar even by todays standards while the N001 was a typical Soviet style radar with lots of leakage (unintentional sidelobe) which made it inferior to the smaller APG63. You can also fiddle around looking for the weight diffrence. After all, the Irbis should be lighter… right?

The increase in performance/electrical watt and performance/thermal watt has not been accompanied by a decrease in overall wattage, either thermal or electrical.

I think they forget one very real aspect of reality…

If you buy are going to spend over 200 million $ on a piece of equipment you are likely to want to have it as survivable as possible. If you want performance, then space is limited and you fit as much avionics/sensors as possible in it. So being able to create more compact systems only gives the result that you squeeze more of them in there.

On cellphones we see this. Instead of making them smaller (as was the trend when we had monochrome displays with limited useability) today the trend is to add more stuff. “Oh, can we fit another camera in there? How many antennas and radio bands can the unit cover, lets add NMT, FM/AM, GSM, LTE, UMTS, WiFi, IR, Bluetooth and GPS”… Same goes for fighters. “Oh, can we make smaller antennas? Lets put more of them in there, oh, and finally we can increase peak power!” with the obvious result that the radar weighs more and needs more cooling.

Sure, if you dont want to improve the capabilities then the airframes will get lighter and lighter with every upgrade… but why would anyone pay to stay the same or get marginally better while saving a pound when the alternative is getting large upgrades and have a weight difference that is barely noticeable?