Weren’t there claims India integrated the R-73 on the Mirage 2000?
What about Russia using the Damocles on the Su-34, etc:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/16/220747/russian-fighters-to-use-thales-damocles-targeting-pods.html
Currently Luftwaffe Eurofighters carry the IRIS-T during QRA. Do they carry AMRAAM operationally? Any photos?
Last I heard they were due for AMRAAM firings in 2009.
IIRC, in Swedish service the Gripen costs 2000$ per hour operate. The Gripen has a MTBF of 7.6 hours and requires 10 MMH/FH.
They claimed $2500/hour, 12 maintenance man hours/flying hour (MMH/FH) and mean time between failure (MTBF) of 7.6 hours in 2000 (after 10,000 hours of operational flying). The objective by 2003 was $2000/hour and 10 MMH/FH. They are claiming twice the time before breaking down, then 1/2 the time to repair. The MMH/FH include depot level maintenance.
An unnamed USAF fighter (probably F-16) given as MTBF 4.6 hours.
Source: World Air Power Journal Volume 26, page 84.
Usually some remain in US for maintenance crew, pilot training, testing of country specific systems, etc for a few months.
F-22 was $19 k, F-15 $17 k (2008 figures):
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/F22AssertionsAndFacts.pdf
EA-18G expected to cost ~$7400 vs EA-6B ~$17000+ (probably also 2008 figures).
Source: IAPR Volume 26, EA-18G article, page 61
Gripen costs are direct flight costs, US include the life cycle including depot maintenance, etc. The initial high F-22 costs also included startup. Comparing apples with oranges.
Agreed.
Thanks Peter, I don’t think AWAC’s will be close enough to make it worthwhile to include MADL. When is F-22 and F-35 suppose to be able to communicate via MADL ?
The last 83 F-22 (‘Late Block 30’) will be upgraded to Increment 3.2/Block 35 (MADL, AIM-120D, AIM-9X, etc) between 2014 and 2018. In Service date is 2015.
Block 1 – “SAMP/T uses Aster 30 block 1 missiles which are equipped with a modified seeker, fuse, signal processing and a directional blast warhead where larger warhead fragments are directed towards the target.”
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aster-30/
Low cost dart modified to be optomised against TBM, but retaining anti-aircraft capability.
In the naval side there have been proposals for naval Aster 45 SAMP-N (Medium range naval) and Aster 60.
Aster 45 would have a booster optomised for range (Aster 30 is optmised for rapid acceleration). Range supposedly increases from 70 to 100 km (target not specificied).
Aster 60 was an earlier(?) anti-ballistic missile effect.
Aster 30 is 4.9 m long (dart and booster), Aster 15 is 4.2 m.
Sylver A70 is 7.6 m deep and can handle missiles 6.6 m long – it has some room for a longer interceptor – note the image Swerve posted (see below), shows a full width interceptor (Block 2?).
The proposed (unfunded) Type 45 DDG missile defence upgrade:
Stage 1: Software to detect and track missiles out to 1300 km. These would be passed over Link 16 to USN ships to intercept.
Stage 2: Increase radar faces from 2.4m2 to 3.6m2. Detection range to 1750 km+.
Stage 3: Would add a mid-course interceptor.
Land based SAMP/T should enter service with Block 1 missiles.
Thats kinda the point though. They are past attempting to buy the ‘best tanker’, and are the stage of needing a tanker, any tanker will do.
The F-22 IFDL and F-35 MADL are low power, short range datalinks – “If you emit you die….”
IFDL (IntraFlight Datalink) is supposedly between a flight a 4 F-22 or 4 flights. Its a F-22-only system, hence the ‘useless F-22 cannot communicate with legacy platforms’. Block 35 will add the MADL to the F-22. F-22 has Link 16 Rx only.
MADL (Multi-Advanced Data Link) is Ku band and daisy-chains to other F-35 (later F-22 and B-2). Bandwidth is roughly the same as Link 16. F-35 has Link Tx/Rx – they know they will lose the Romulan cloaking device with Link 16 Tx, but if you have to, then you have to.
Note, the Eurofighter MAWS is also Ku band, its also LPI.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/15/325156/usaf-selects-datalink-to-bridge-communications-gap-between-f-22-and.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Airborne_Communications_Node_%28BACN%29
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/data_link_processing_and_manag/assets/BACN.pdf
Reco NG has an 1100mm EO/IR. Resolution 0.15 m from 250m altitude (IR) and 1 m from 90 km (day EO) or 45 km (night IR). It also has a 350 km datalink.
Some MAWS are radar based:
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/defences.html#maw
Currently the Eurofighter MAWS isn’t operational, but should be in the near future.
J-15 has canards: http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/J-15.jpg
It might be a EMI (electromagnetic interference) test facility and/or a flight deck trainer for ground staff.
Theres a lot of radars, communications, landing aids, etc all radiating in close proximity to aircraft. A mockup would assist in testing aircraft.
Aircraft carriers need tie down points, train crew, space and angles for moving aircraft around the flight deck, test jet blast defectors, etc.
I’m guessing both.
Check out the J-11 and J-11BS – they can carry PRC missiles, I’m guessing the J-15 can carry the YJ-83 or similar anti-shipping missile.
Supposedly the J-15:
http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/J-15a.jpg
One of the marketing videos says EODAS provides a ’10 mile bubble’.