Tu22m14 pylons for Rafale B/C Tu22 🙂
It has 2 centerline pylons? Guess I learn something new every day. Still, both alternatives are more than 12 😉
Tu22mSu-35 is most advanced fighter because real money is behind it on scale unavailable to any other 4++ fighter. Just TVC implementation and keep the weight down to original Flanker with 11.5 ton fuel capacity and much more electronics/OBOGS/on board engine will make it $100b EU equivalent. these are just export figures.
Or it can have something to do with the fact that is is huge in comparison to others?
If we compare size to the Rafale we get
Length: 15.27 vs 21.9m
Wingspan: 10.8 m vs 15.3 m
And it also just happens to carry the largest radar but only 12 pylons (Gripen has 11, Rafale 13). And thanks to its size it also has a lot of fuel (cockpit area takes up less area, same for avionics exept radar so more internal space for fuel). Similarily a Tu22M has even greater range, even larger radar (if they wanted it) and a larger payload. But you are right. If the custimer asks, will I have a better overall capability and a larger mission flexibility with 10 Su35S instead of 10 Rafale/Gripen/Whatever then the answer likely is yes.
Tu22myou seem to be confusing 650 ways of saying the same thing with 650 different ways of achieving a goal.
No Spudman, I using your words.
Definitely, no arguments there. Twice the missiles, TVC, better stealth, more powerful radar, higher top speed, etc.
Although the F-35 does edge the F-22 out in the different ways it can ID a target (600 vs 200).
The specifics are classified but here is what was said at the recent AU Parliamentary testimony:
Air Vice Marshal Osley: And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that
Doc from 16 March 2012 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/…6f148e/0000%22
I would imagine that most of those 650 are ESM related with the rest related to radar and EOTS data.
So, talking about the double standards… in this chart FOV only came up 3 times. And when you throw around BS like 650 parameters to find a target it’s fine. Ill remember that.
If the target is within WVR range then EODAS handles all the targeting in a full 360.
But outside 15km if you need to pull a hard turn? No? Nothing?
F-35 users can integrate their own weapons/pods through UAI. All partner nations have a say in what the F-35 offers as part of its software suite and by keeping it “universal” they keep it more stable, keep the maintenance down, and keep the FOD cost & timeframe down. Btw, the JPO as part of the Israeli negotiations reviled that the F-35’s avionics will offer APIs for clients that “must” have their own stuff.
Well, it’s been going like clockwork this far or is the program “only” 5 years behind the original IOC? It was supposed to be operational for 3 years before we had operation Unified Protector. With weapons integrated. Lets just wait and see when the F35 will get Meteor, because it is already fully integrated in the Eurocanards.
As you can see from my post above, the APG-81 has 1626 modules. Show me a HiRes shot of an uncovered Gripen AESA and I’ll count those for you .
That will have to wait since there are no pictures out there. But power output is just as important and the difference between GaN vs GaAs in that area is pretty large.
The MADL can connect SIX times as many fighters together than TIDLS. Nobody has DIRCM although it is part of the F-35’s funded FOD program.
Do you mean the TIDLS from 1993? Probably. Do you know the capabilities of TIDLS for the NG? No? Thought so.
UAI integration time is measured in MONTHS and not the YEARS that it takes to integrate weapons now. Being the first does not mean that it did not take you long to do it, just that you were willing to spend the time & money to offer a wide variety of weapons due to the clientele that you are perusing.
Well, I could make a SpudmanWP-claim here and just take what the manufacturer tells for granted, like this:
Because of its well-known ease of new weapon integration, Gripen served as the main test platform for Meteor. No other fighter in the world has fired more live Meteors than Gripen.
But there are actual numbers out there, like these:
Flight testing of the Thales Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod for South Africa’s Gripens was completed in 2011 in “less than eight months,” they say.
Now, this wasnt a weapon but it does show that integrating advanced systems only takes months on Gripen. As has been proven with actual projects. Btw, if you had any experience from IT you would know that a split avionics core is a bigger step towards fast and painless integration compared to a block system with a standard interface.
Tu22m1. They represented the FOV 3 different ways under radar
You mean just like LM does in other areas like the 650 different ways of detecting a target? You yourself used that bs.
2. What is an A2A “enhanced” IRST? How is it embedded (so is the F-35’s) a second benefit?
It means the IRST can track your target even when you pull a high G turn towards him because it is placed above the upper side of the fuselage instead of the belly or under the nose. Similarily the IRST on Gripen is not optimal for ground targets since the fuselage is in the way when looking down. Luckily that is solved with a pod.
3. What are user “apps”?
Something the F35 will never have. Thanks to the split avionics core the users will be able to integrate their own weapons, their own private datasharing modes etc. Possibly even use their own EWS-algorithms or being able to add their legacy datalink to their platform without even touching the flight critical software. User apps is flexibility, cheap software patches and freedom to tailor an existing product to your own needs.
4. The APG-81 has at least 50% more T&R modules yet they are in the same “class”
The APG 81 has, afaik, some 1200 GaAs based T/R modules while the Gripen most likely will be at around 1000 GaN T/R modules. Considering the higher power output in GaN antennas it is quite plausible that the ES-05 will outrange the APG81 against the same target.
5. Notice the lack of mentioning the F-35’s voice control (plus satcom, AESA radar datalinks, cooperative EW, MADL supports 25 terminals, etc, etc) that is lacking on Gripen?
Both have directional datalinks, both have SATCOM, both have AESA-based EW-suites with DIRCM and 360 degree coverage. AFAIK Gripen will have GaN based EW but the F35?
4. Sorry to say, but without UAI (or something similar) the Gripen should not get “Reduced stores integration time” as it would still require a software upgrade.
It is the first to integrate Meteor, it’s the only fighter to have both MICA and AMRAAM integrated (how is Rafale doing here? Amraam integrated? etc. So I’d say it has proven to have short integration times already, and the split avionics core will improve this further.
7. They fail to mention that having a repositioner increases the maintenance requirements for the radar. The APG-81 is designed with enough spare (vs spec requirement) T&R modules so that the radome does not have to be removed (and LO treatments redone) for the lifetime of the F-35. Any radar equipment that needs to be maintained is accessed from behind via the front wheel bay.
Ah, so they reduced capability for maintainability and lower costs? Too bad that the Gripen is so much cheaper to operate already then?
Tu22mIt’s more complex than that. Fused avionics means that each piece of the puzzle (radar, ESM, IRST, etc) shares it’s final data solution (ie a plane track, a emitter location, etc).
The F-35’s APG-81 and ESM take this a step further by sharing and cross analyzing the raw data to come up with a unified solution. This allows pieces of a partial solution, that would likely be dismissed on their own, to be recognized for what it is and properly classified.
Still old stuff. Or do you think that… say one F16 shows up as three targets on the Rafale hud? (Emission/rwr + radar reflection + IR)
In reality sensor fusion in single aircraft and over data links have been around for decades.
Tu22mNot sure why you are making this assertion, there is no attempt to predict combat effectiveness. Secondly, yes fifth gen aircraft employ different tactics, but: the weapons they employ are the same as other fighters, and the physics are the same for fourth or fifth gen aircraft, they can only turn/pitch/roll so much within load factors. Make no mistake, the sensor fusion and data fusion has a huge impact on combat effectiveness. (one the first articles up top dealt with sensor agility)
Out of curiosity. How will 5th gen vs 4,5th gen differ from 4,5th gen vs 4th or 3rd gen?
The advantages are the same: Ie..
4,5th gen use lower RCS to get a relative edge on their radars vs older 4th gen fighters. Meaning that they can get closer undetected. Ie, BVR superiority.
They also use datalinks to allow other aircraft to silently get close to the enemy undetected and get the advantage when they attack.
Are the 5th gen tactics different?
At least to me it just sounds evolutionary. Just like the steps have been before that. Like, the WWI Rumpler Taube with translucent wings, the pink spitfires etc. Heck, even Yehudi lights have been around. All these perks do is to shorten the detection range, but they are in no way revolutions making XXX obsolete.
(See, I didnt even have to mention any specific modern fighters :D)
Tu22mHas this been posted?
http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf
Has pretty much all formulas on the relation of bank angle/turning, aerodynamic lift/thrust lift etc. Even covers missile agility.
Tu22mThat is it! Thanks!
Still laugh badly at this:
Why is it so important to produce such utter BS for the Indians? Is the culture that similar to the arab nations?
Tu22mWell, that’s interesting. Brazil gets a development share to keep industry happy without cutting too much out of the development of the base model, & presumably should be the sole source for any future two-seaters.
Is it possible that Sweden will buy some Gripen Fs from Brazil?
If we look historically Sweden has always opted for the single seater and then bought the twin seater along with it. In this case development risc will be payed for by Brazil, and if they are successful it is possible that Brazil can have their own export customer for a handful twin seaters within a few years.
Even though it probably wont happen it is still an interesting possibility.
Tu22m1: N036, as of now, use GaA’s. It might or might not use GaN in the future but in order to switch to that they would have to redo testing…
2: Everyone can pull off data from wiki. F119 is 156kN at the very least. It is probably more like in 165-170 range.
3: Fair enough, but T-50 does not have HMDS yet. And considering its massive HUD i am not sure it will until atleast to version with Izd.30
4: Materials on F-35 are rather interesting, it doesn’t seems to me russians are on pair with US in that regard just yet.
1 The X-35 didnt fly with the latest radar either. At IOC Pak FA is very likely to use GaN based radar.
2 I use it for comparison only, but we still see higher thrust and lower weight for Izd.30 vs F119
3 How long did the F35 need for its TV-helmet? Was it installed on the X-35 or on early LRIP? Will it have it at IOC?
4 Have you looked at the stuff Mr Asakura has layed forward? The materials are brand new and on par with the F35. Possibly even ahead.
Tu22mBIO: In what areas will it be lagging?
If we look at stuff like the following it feels like they will end up ahead.
1 Radar: F-22 will still use GaAs based AESA, Pak FA will use GaN based AESA wit longer range (due to its larger size and power output…). It will also feature at least two additional radars.
2 Engine performance: F119 weight 1770 kg, thrust 156 kN (8,8:1 assuming 10N per Kg), Izd 30 will have a thrust/weight ratio of around 12 or better.
3 Avionics: From what we know Pak FA will have IRST, HMDS and some 240 degree AESA coverage. F22 has none of that.
4 Materials: Pak FA seems to be ahead in the materials sector and about on par with the F35 (meaning a split first place in the world).
But this is normal. The one fielding their system later will usually have the most modern one. (Assuming similar TTM)
However, when LM or Northrop fields their 6th gen a decade or so from Pak FA IOC the tables will have turned yet again.
Tu22m2 years old non news….
The post that Brazils Navy will have a navalised Gripen is news, the topic above is what they are likely to get. Or where you commenting Janes?
Tu22mThat is awesome! It is finally happening 😀
The discussions so far have been that the carrier version will have thrust vectoring (pitch) and a stronger engine (F414 EPE).
But I guess Brazil will have a lot of saying in how to design the aircraft.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225301[/ATTACH]
Full Indian brief http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/09/saabs-official-brief-to-indian-navy-on.html
Tu22mAbout stealth and its relevance…
Self advertising…
http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fportail-aviation.blogspot.fr%2F2013%2F11%2Ffurtif-vous-avez-dit-furtif-partie-1.html&langpair=fr|en
http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fportail-aviation.blogspot.fr%2F2013%2F12%2Ffurtif-vous-avez-dit-furtif-partie-2.html&langpair=fr|enplease remind it is a google translation of popularization articles. Constructive remarks are welcome.
It was excellent.
But regarding the -100dB sensitivity, the antennas are already way below that threshold. The sensitivity currently is at below background radiation level meaning that they see and hear everything. The trick is to have a good filter with few false positives. Btw, check your inbox 😉
Tu22mYes Saab, with then subcontractors and competitors Ericsson Saab Avionics and Celsius Tech (now they are united in EDS), got the contract for EWS39 in 1999. BAe has no detailed insight into that system.
I am not certain, but I believe that the contract for AN/ALR-94 for the F-22 was signed quite some time before the contract for EWS39
Gripen shipped with EWS-39 in 1993 as the name shows (Gripen is aircraft 39, aka JAS 39 Gripen). Throughout its life it has had several upgrades, including some tailored for South Africa. From Wiki:
Saab Military Aircraft and British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) formed in 1995 the joint venture company Saab-BAe Gripen AB, to manufacture, market and support Gripen internationally. This co-operation was extended in 2001 with the formation of Gripen International for the same purpose.
The Eurofighter was still in its infancy when the contracts where signed and the baseline for the EWS had to come from somewhere while being competitive in both cost and performance 😉 Anyways, that was just a sidetrack even though it sort of describes why older doesnt mean worse. Any system that is modular and easy to upgrade will remain competitive as long as it is supported.
The point was more related to PAWS-2 vs DAS where PAWS-2 is tested in real life, extended and upgraded and now features panoramic view, better cameras/sensors than the original PAWS-2, DIRCM-integration and so on. EWS-39 is just one example of an excellent architecture that allows for expansion.
Sign In
