Peter GThat “70s airframe” (actually a late 1960s airframe) is exactly what every single one of the proposed “Tomcat 21, etc” versions would have still been saddled with!
NONE of them proposed a complete airframe re-design with modern materials and aerodynamics… or even a significant revision!
Pretty good page on the proposals: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm
Problem with any cancelled aircraft or upgrade is they get a pass on any issues that would have arisen during development.
The costs were found to fairly high and would have taken too long. F-14A to F-14B was fairly easy and cheap, F-14D less so, F-14D Quickstrike was too expensive for the capability added and forget the remainder (it was cheaper to develop the F/A-18E/F).
The F110 in the F-14B & F-14D DID have FADEC… and it still had restrictions to low-speed AOA etc due to airflow problems with engine performance.
Haven’t heard anything about restrictions. Any more on this?
And even with an improved flight-control system the F-14D still had restrictions on its flight envelope related to airframe aerodynamics that negatively affected max airspeed (limited to significantly below the “book” max), maneuvering angles and rates, etc.
They were actually fitted with a flight control system (based on the Eurofighter) in the 1990s which much improved the slow speed and landing characteristics.
Yes there is… the APG-79 radar is capable of exploiting the full range and maneuverability of all AIM-120 models… so there is no way that carrying them on an F-14super-duper could change the missile’s performance, as the slightly higher real-world speed of the F-14 is not enough to measurably increase the max range of AIM-120.
Agreed. Speed drops to at least Mach 1.88 with weapons carried.
F-14 bringback wasn’t that good either. Cruise speed was 410-420 knots for F-14A and F-14B/D – fantastic for CAPing, not so good for escort. Like the Tornado F3, the Tomcast would need to use military power a lot more.
Without the legacy Hornet the Midway carriers would have had to have been retired as they lacked the room to perform some maintenance tasks on the F-14 landing gear and ejection seat.
Peter GPeter G1L222 Avtobaza covers 8000 – 17544 MHz which is X-band (I/J) or fighter radars.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html#mozTocId651861
If we assume RQ-170 uses same datalinks as RQ-1 Predator, or Ku-band for SATCOM. Thats 12000 – 18000 MHz
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-1.html
In other words it will not detect down-links from satellites to UAV (Edit: As pointed out it can detect it!).
Satellite communications can be jammed – its a simple as pointing a noise jammer towards a satellites coverage. The uplink from UAV to satellite will be drowned by noise (see Freidmans Seapower and Space for much more on this), although some US satellites are jam resistant – frequency-agile, phased array nulling etc.
Note Iran has been jamming satellite TVs in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming
Peter GReco NG recon pod is rated at 1 meter resolution at 90 km (day) and 45 km (night). Thats probably enough for resolving SAM sites:
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/niirs.htm
Libyan air defenses in May 2010: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/libyan-sam-network.html
SA-2 Guideline (S-75M Volkhov) has max range 43 km
SA-3 Goa (S-125M Neva-M) max range is 26 km
SA-5 Gammon (S-200VE Volga) max range is 250 km (site above uses 300 km for SA-5).
Libya is hardly heavily defended…. Discounting SA-5, Libyan airspace is too large to defend with SAMs.
Benghazi and other targets mentioned are on coast. So no issue with recon missions being intercepted (hostilies were not declared. Rafale with SPECTRA could dive down below SA-5 radar LOS and avoid and shots in any case).
SA-2 and SA-3 systems are mobilish (SA-3 more so than SA-2). Any sites that had been sighted by Reco NG are pretty much toast.
SA-5 is not mobile, so approach below its radar LOS (perfect profile for Rafale) or just use SCALP EG/Storm Shadow (again can approach from below radar LOS) to take out guidance radars and followup with AASM.
SPECTRA will do its magic against any popup threats, then AASM or GBU-12 against these.
Peter GISTR the quote was for a metal sphere the size of a marble for the F-22 and a metal sphere the size of a golf ball for the F-35.
Peter GDead link: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111031p2g00m0bu108000c.html
Did mentions the RF-15J has been cancelled.
Peter GIs GBU-24 operational on Rafale?
Peter GI wouldn’t want to describe the Rafale as a ‘Jack of All Trades’, because that would infer mere competence, rather than the excellent ratings it enjoys in so many areas. By any normal (non French) yardstick, I’m quite a fan of the little Rafale, it’s just that I don’t think that it’s 100% perfect, and nor do I think that it’s the best fighter in service today, so to its more avid fans, I seem to be a ‘knocker’.
I like the Rafale (and Eurofighter) a lot. I’d be interested in how you think the Rafale falls short.
Libya is good as it could get for Rafale – AASM rocks, Reco NG has good range, SPECTRA is brilliant (with further improvements planned), RBE had an operational SAR mode, it can carry plenty of small stores (6 GBU-12 or 6 GBU-22 or 6 AASM) for close and medium range work and SCALP EG has excellent standoff.
Rafale enjoys multiple capabilities, and it has an excellent suite of A-G weapons, that will only be further enhanced if the AdlA acquire Brimstone, and if they get a better targeting pod than the mediocre Damocles. One hopes that talks with LM about Sniper come to fruition.
How does the Damocles rate as mediocre?
They are looking at Damocles MP (Multi-Porteur or Multi-carrier). I’m unsure on what changes this means, it was supposed to enter service in 2011 (did it?).
Damocles XF (eXtended Features) has improved TV & FLIR image processing including continuous zoom, graphical overlays on aircraft display (shows friendly positions, weapon danger zones, etc), laser marker for NVG. Can be used for reconnaissance and BDA. It is supposed to enter service in 2015/2016.
After that they are looking towards PDL NG with improved daylight modes, improved processing.
I was somewhat stunned when I heard Recon NG lacked in cockpit target extraction – planned for the future. That means they cannot target dynamic targets (something the similar RAPTOR and RecceLite are capable of). The imagery can be viewed in realtime, but presumedly GPS co-ordinates cannot be extracted?
Firstly, the thing about Dynamic (as opposed to pre-planned) targeting, is that it requires flexibility and adaptability, and the ability to rapidly retask. The simple fact is that figures issued by the CAOC and shown by AOC 1 Group and OC XI Squadron during their pre-RIAT press briefing show that the UK performed the lions share of these missions requiring reactive, dynamic targeting.
It’s not about hitting moving targets (though Typhoon did that, too), though I would say that a moving target engagement capability perhaps has more to do with one’s choice of pod than with the aircraft.
Dig at Damocles? 😉
Heres the rub (and I’m more than happy to be proved incorrect).
First Rafale missions were standoff recon and not penetration?
AASM was mainly used in preplanned modes – there is no frigging way that Damocles could detect an SA-3 battery at maximum AASM range. Its also a slow weapon. Just because it was used against a SAM battery doesn’t make it a DEAD weapon.
Edit: JDW reports ~100 AASM were fired against dynamic targets such as SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8. SPECTRA detected threats, and cued Damocles or OSF. How many AASM were fired in Libya?
It ain’t SEAD due to its slow speed – how would AASM go against an popup SA-10 or SA-20 threat?
GPS AASM is brilliant – but against dynamic threats it requires someone else passing GPS co-ordinates to use its maximum range.
IIRH AASM is also brilliant, but the seeker is only used against preprogrammed static targets (similar to DSMAC on cruise missiles and not systems such as Maverick)
SALH AASM is just weird – your need a laser designator in range. In high threat a UAV is currently toast, designated from the Rafale greatly reduces AASM range and using a ground team places them at risk.
They are looking at datalinks and possibly ARM seekers and antishipping modes (IRH mods?).
And I’m also keen for someone to publicise which aircraft struggled to keep flying the very long range sorties due to fuel transfer and engine related problems.
Thats definitely a dig at the Rafale aborts!
Peter G,
In the UK, the HEA has been in use by No.17 Squadron for a very long time. The decision was taken to wait until it could be issued force wide, rather than trickling it out to some pilots, or on a squadron-by-squadron basis. This meant that on a given Monday morning, the whole force could be handed their helmets, given the user guide, received the lecture from the 17 Squadron helmet SME (who has more than 200 hours helmet time) and go off and start using it. This meant that the RAF had to wait until sufficient helmets were ready to be issued to every pilot. This finally happened in October.
They did bin the integrated night vision and replaced it with snap on googles?
In any case thanks for the information – a very useful tool in the pilots list of options.
Peter GGoogle has a decent page on this, and has Switzerland having on offset multiplier of between 2 and 3.
Are we talking direct or indirect offsets?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_agreement
Peter GHMD/HMSS or HEA as it’s properly known has been in frontline operational service with the RAF Typhoons for the past 7 weeks now.
Cool!. Hey, wait, what? I’ve done the google thing, got a source on this?
Peter GRafale F3.3 upgrade is due this month. Any idea what this involves?
ISTR 2011 was the due date for Reco NG pod operational with the Rafale in terrain following mode…..
Peter GPeter GIsrael has proposed an exchange between M-346 for Israeli jet trainers and G550 for Italian AEW.
Peter GAt the time the RAAF was looking at Python 4, ASRAAM and AIM-9X (late 1990s). All were flown captively and had the seekers tested against countermeasures, etc (Python 4 in 1996).
AIM-9X was offered to be delivered at the same time as to US forces.
Python 4 had a scanning vice imaging IR seeker. Python 5 with improved agility and an imaging seeker wasn’t offered till 2003.
In the end ASRAAM was selected due to its early availability. It has been in service since August 2004 on the F/A-18s, with HMD entering service in December 2007. The RAAF was actually the first user with digital interface with ASRAAM (RAF later followed – they initially used analog interface).
RAAF F/A-18F use AIM-9X to save money – the RAAF doesn’t want to spend money integrating non-USN weapons on an ‘interim’ type.
AFAIK ASRAAM is out of production and no longer on offer to export customers? Possibly why Saudi Arabia went with IRIS-T? It has been updated at least once with improved seeker logic.
ASRAAM has something like peak agility of 50G, Python 5 70G(!) – all are plenty for killing fighters. Compared with older AAM (30G for AIM-9L). All are BVR missiles. ASRAAM is supposed to be faster and longer ranged than other missiles.
Out of date in some respects: http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html
Peter GJDW has confirmed the JF-17 Block 2 will include inflight refuelling probe (they had previously said all would be fitted with probe by 2015), improved frequency coverage for jammer pod and two seat version.
It will also have ‘improved avionics’, but will remain with the original radar.
It further speculates South African avionics and A Darter in future.
Sign In
