The Sigma class SAM is Tetral, although the photos at the website are Sadral!:
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=181

Sadral is more expensive as it has on mount fire control (Tetral would use the LIROD 76mm gun fire control) and heavier (1080 kg vice 600 kg – surprising how much this matters).

BTW can anybody clue me in on the the RN 992Q/996 radars vice the USN SPS 39/52 and SPS 48? Or put another way: What radar did the height-finding for the Type 42 DDGs? Or did the 909 missile-guidance radars serve this function also?

Thanks
Rick

909 nods up and down providing height finder info- this does increase the time between engagements….

Limitations of offboard cueing

“Pooling the capabilities of the Rb99, radar and datalink also gives the JA 37D (and JAS 39) the ability to undertake ‘bi-static’ attacks, in which the target position data and missile support is supplied by another radar. this could be a GCI radar, or the S 100B Argus AEW aircraft, or more likely another JA 37D or JAS 39. A typical scenario might involve a Viggen (or Gripen) using its radar from great distance to supply target information vai the datalink to a ‘shooter’ aircraft operating ‘silently’ much nearer the target.

While this capability is indeed impressive, pilots downplay the capability as it has some limitations. The most obvious of these is the need for really good positional correlation between the ‘players’, in turn requiring everyone to have their navigation systems working perfectly. Any small inaccuracies at missile launch will be magnified during the fly-out so that when the target is ‘handed over’ to the missile, it might be outside the limits of teh weapon’s radar, which has a very small look angle (“like looking through a straw”). Nonetheless, the capability presents a whole new tactical dimension to air defence, made possible through teh extraordinary advances made by the Swedes in datalink technology and employment”

International Air Power Review 14, pg 70 (JA 37 article by David Donald)

The positional disadvantage is known as gridlock.

There was mention made of a Rafale engaging a target via Link 16 with Mica IR. The wingman passed the postion, and the firer launched against a target in its rear aspect.

Engaging against ship targets by ships over datalink is nothing new – these are against much slower targets. Long range Tomahawk msls required the detecting unit to be equipped with GPS navigation due to gridlock.

Internal fuel is 13030 litres.

Ranges given are:
580 km subsonic out, 185 km supercruise combat, 580 km return (JDW 30 Nov 2005)

560 km subsonic out, 185 km supercruise combat, 580 km return
750 km subsonic out, 90 km supercruise, 750 km return
1100 km subsonic out, 1100 km return
http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2005/0105raptor.asp

Ferry range given as 3190 km

The originally planned mission profile was based in UK, fighter over central Europe threatre and RTB without tanking. The USAF will still need extensive tanker support to fight over PRC based in Okinawa, although Iran from Saudi is fine, as is North Korea from South Korea.

It ain’t ever going to exported but if Australia did buy it, it would still require extensive tanking support – the distances involved are too big.

Israel could comfortably cover most of Egypt and Syria and NE Saudi Arabia without tanker support although all would depend on defensive routing around radar sites.

The E-2C Group II with APS-145 is rated at 220 km vs missile (0.1 m2?) or 40 km vs 0.0001 m2.

The E-2D APY-9 is said to have 250% coverage which is 350 km vs 0.1 m2 and 62 km vs 0.0001 m2

As per attachment.

Supposedly the environmental system is cleared to 66000 feet, although they typically operate at 60,000 feet.

The pilots use pressure breathing.

By 1975 there were no restrictions of 5Gs as you comment, the MiG-23 edition 71 was restricted in 1971 to only a mere 3Gs however by 1975 the MiG-23M had no that restriction. The F-5 was not capable of outaccelerating the MiG-23 a critic flaw if you are not armed with AIM-7 Sparrows.

Alexander Mladenov disagrees with you on the MiG-23M issues. His article in International Air Power Review 14, page 96:
“The initial mass production of the wing pivots and no.2 centre-fuselage steel tank – was of low quality, and cracks occurred often on the MiG-23S/M/UB produced in the early and mid-1970s. In addition, there were many wing sweep failures, which prompted VVS to impose a temporary 5-G restriction that effectively prevented combat squadrons from practicing BFM until 1977”.

They did rebuilds which fixed the wing pivots and strength issues. He also mentioned serious engine surge problems with msls fired from fuselage in 1976, which had to be sorted.

The US had similar wing pivot problems with early F-111, so nothing new here.

The F-4 from 1000 to 5000 meters does not show any advantage versus the MiG-23ML and it is hard to argument the MiG-23M will be less capable.

But the F-4 was getting spanked by the ‘much superior’ MiG-17 in turning in the 1960s and 1970s – the US response was to use the vertical. I’m not saying using the vertical would work against the MiG-23M, but I lack stats on which aircraft can reverse faster (useful in rolling scissors) which could climb faster and which had the least AoA restrictions – all are important in the dogfight.