Nick_76Schorsch, I dont have a dog in this f(l)ight. Nor did I make those graph/s.
But he is not “self claimed”. He is an aeroengineer from a top notch place & well regarded. If he is at fault, please do build up your arguement on the basis of his statements, not his persona/ nationality/ or religion.
Nick_76Hey, evil genius didnt you just out your evil plan to the entire board? 😀
Nick_76Sukhoi was indeed not even invited.:rolleyes::diablo:
Sure, by KKM57P logic that was so EADS didnt feel bad. Right?
BTW, Korea also chose the F-15, the EF must really suck, what?
Hmm, if the IAF chooses the F/A-18 E/F in its MRCA, that must mean the EF is the worst ever.
The EF was not even asked by the RAAF to compete for its fighter requirement.
Aw shucks, the EF must be junk!
Of course, politics, requirements, funding, et al have nothing to do with purchases. Right?
All using your wonderful grasp of logic & debating skills.
For EADSs own sake, I do hope you are not in anyway associated with the German aeronautical industry.
Cheers!!
Nick_76Cheers for the response Nick_76, it’s nice to debate with someone who comes across as impartial. Firstly I would like to point out that I was mainly responding to Zare’s post earlier in this thread. But being lazy I used you.
Same here & likewise. Being lazier than you, I will take a raincheck on some of the points you raised & which to some degree I agree with.
But I think what I was getting at is more doctrinal.
I agree with the fact that the Raptor is tres cool and dayyum fancy & everything, but I do wonder at the cost of the program & its timelines. Unlike the Europeans and emerging economies like China & India, the US didnt need to develop the capability to field a state of the art fighter, it could have concentrated on the JSF alone, and worked more on autonomous missiles & UCAVs for taking the fight deep into enemy airspace.
It is that which makes me question the F-22 since in some ways it appears to be a B-2 redone (in terms of a program), since the fighter pilots wanted their best toy, which would have been manageable at a time of economic boom. But now, with the economic troubles the US is having, the F-22 could be a bridge too far.
Nick_76That is exactly what I want to mean: guesswork, declaration, estimation….. You can take the most optimistic declaration and estimation of Russian radar(s) and believe it is superior than APG-77, APG-79, APG-81, APG-63V3/4, and Captor etc, but others can also take the most optimistic declaration and estimation of APG-77, APG-79, APG-81, APG-63V3, or Captor and say it should be the best radar of all…….but finally, no one will be able to confirm which one is really the best of best, since we have no idea if they are compared under the same and fair condition.
Exactly.
Fact is its pretty much impossible to figure out which system is better than the other, it gets much worse when talking of systems of similar performance class, since the pros and cons are so minor that they might cancel each other out.
On a given day, one radar, with better calibration might achieve sterling figures which it would never get otherwise as well.
What fun. :cool::p::o
Kopp made his own estimation and assumption in ausairpower.net, but it is not necessarily the golden evidence to prove that Su-35BM’s radar must be superior to any American fighter’s AESA radar except APG-77.
To be fair to Kopp he does lay out his assumptions and estimates in most cases. But he has a hard-on for the Super Hornet and tends to rubbish the type by discounting tactics and weaponry that would make it a potent system (which it is).
Nick_76Who whose the first wipped out of contest in Signapore ?
Suchoi!
Maybe read AFM!:diablo:
And given the F-15SG won the contest to end with, that should really really make you cry!
All they had to do, was replace the radar & a few other doodads, and it was better than the EF!
Per your logic. :rolleyes:
Nick_76Maybe I get cynic, but such claims do explain a lot about the sorrow state of the Tejas and the Kaveri, when taken seriously. To all the other Indian poster, that is not my serious judgement of Indian capabilities and related to the claim above only. 😉
There are some selfclaimed aeronautical engineers around here.
Sens, stop falling to the level of a KKM57P. That poster is an aeronautical engineer & if you have better data, register on the fora & take it up with up him. Otherwise, making sly jibes on the Tejas & what not is ridiculous.
Or would you have me state that all Germans are religious bigots, given KK’s comments & be as lucid as you are being?:rolleyes:
Nick_76He wrote therefore a catholic physics programm or for Hindus a hindu physics programm!
If you must be an obnoxious know it all, can you at least leave religion out of it? Or is that too hard to do. :rolleyes:
Or how can you explains to that the Typhoon archieved supercruise in Signapore on a hot day and the Rafale failed to do this ?!
WTF knows? Have you asked a pilot to come here from the RSAF and share the data? Gawd, save us from fanboys and their outrage!
Nick_76According to the declaration of manufacturer or airforce pilots, the detective / tracking range of some new western radars:
APG-63V2: two times longer than the APG-63, or being able to track a small target (RCS = 1m2 class?? ) at the range of 100 NM away, while the previous APG-63 can just track it at the range of around 50 NM away.
APG-79: two to three times longer than the APG-73.
APG-80: two to three times longer than the APG-68V5.
Captor-M: more than two times longer than the AI24 Z Foxhunter.
PS-05A: 40% longer than APG-68V5 and 20% longer than RDY, or being able to detect the RCS = 5m2 target at the range of 120 km away.
Simply speaking, almost every body declare its new generation radar has the detective / tracking range two to three times longer than the older one it use, not just Russian.
Toan, appreciate your effort, but frankly, this detection, tracking stuff is absolute guesswork.
For one most press reports dont even specify what mode the radar was in to begin with. And what kind of tracking is one referring to anyways?
Are you referring to TWS? Or are you referring to precision tracking for ARH homers? Or are you referring to discrete tracking with CW guidance for SARH shots?
And I am not even going into the pain of determining what the different radar gens have.
Nick_76The reason I big up the EF against the Flanker family is not because of JOUST or SILVE etc nor simulations of simulations at Bristol. 🙂
I believe it is an extremely focused jet – being the second best AD platform behind the Raptor in my opinion – taking the best of the new fighter jet philosophies from a cost benefit ratio. The new Flankers are still based on a 1970/80s jets and as such will always be plagued by the older teen-series “subsonic with Mach 2+ dash” philosophy.
The EF on the other hand is truley a modern AS/AD fighter that was designed as a point defense fighter to work in tandem with the F-22 in the defense of Europe. Not having the money or the capability at the time EF was to overlook VLO and take the other next big step in fighter design philosophy that the F-22 employed. Supersonic performance and maneuverability/agility. Like the F-22, the EF and the other Eurocanards employ a wing optimised for supersonic agility and relatively high operational flight that quite frankly surpass the Flanker series of fighters. The EF will maintain much more energy than a Flanker in a supersonic turn at BVR(cranking away from the fight) and as such while employing advanced weaponary such as Meteor will be more survivable. It uses conformal weapon stations in a relatively similar vein to the F-22s weapons bay and has modern engines and advanced transonic/supersonic aerodynamics that give it an edge over the Flanker series in the SC deparment – although not as much as the F-22 does. It also has a pretty low frontal RCS that enables it to sneak up with Meteor against many FJs. In BVR or high speed – the EF will out climb – out cruise – out acclerate a Flanker – it simply has better kinematics. In many ways it follows the F-22 design philospohies to a lesser extent achieving less capability but being less expensive.
It doesn’t employ TVC in a dogfight but with PIRATE/HMD and Asraam(IMO the best WVRAAM) it will be more than a match for any Flanker. Which above post stall speeds is inferior to the EF in a dogfight in a sustained sense. Just watching at an airshow you see how the EF easily transitions from maneuver to maneuver without losing as much energy as a Flanker does – which has perhaps better instantaneous performance – but who cares about the cobra.
Systems wise – the Captor is apparently world beating – DASS is one of the best ESM/EW suites out there – its MMI is apparently world beating. EJ200 is again a fantastic piece of kit. From a technical sense there is little to fault the Typhoon if developed to its full potential.
Cheers.
Sorry LM, in your post there is nothing certain. Its just an unequivocal belief that whatever the EF consortium claims about their product is absolutely true & that it will, must and should be that way.
For all the yacking from the PR arms – do we know the exact RCS of the EF in the frontal sector? No we dont. The exact range of the Captor? No we dont. This “Captor is world beating” stuff is frankly, all the rah-rah stuff that gets published in aviation mags and we should know better than to repeat it. Same for the MMI & what not. This world beating stuff is so old, that it should be discarded by now unless there is unequivocal proof. There are enough radars out there with similar superior capability- the APG-77, the new APG-63 AESAs, the APG-79, the Bars, the new Irbis…the list is long and by no means complete. And in many cases, they are far more mature and well developed systems while the Captor is yet being developed fully and might be supplanted by a Captor-E just to “keep up with the joneses”, in other words, for all its world beating capabilities, the threat perception moved on.
In the other thread, there was a list of all the stuff that is being done for the EF, many capabilities, that have been rah-rah’ed for ages on the Net & what not have yet to be demonstrated. In IAF observation, the EF is a good plane but not invulnerable or by any means so far ahead as you have implied. The same has been felt by other users too, journalist comments & media reports apart. If those were the standards one went by, every fighter out there is the best there is.
All this crank stuff is also ridiculous since the EF propoganda attempts to use the Raptor PR to score a similar point, but neglect to mention the tactic is being carried out at much lower speeds and height differential. Any worldclass user will have a good eye in the sky, his fighters will remain passive, detect the EF at sufficient range & can afford to remain high subsonic while attempting to flank the EF for BVR shots. Saves fuel & is more well coordinated to boot. There are dime a dozen methods and I am not even getting into the pros and cons of TVC both in WVR and BVR.
Fact of life is that as an overall package, the EF is a worldclass system – which by itself is a significant accomplishment for EADS, but its nowhere near the kind of system that makes opponents go wobbly kneed & retire, despite the marketing PR.
The point is simple – the EF has some pros vs its peers, and some cons. And the result is that a skilled operator with a sufficient force structure (AWACS, IFR et al) can effectively counter what the EF brings to the table. And if the EF were to go up without supporting assets, it would be hammered.
It is the Raptor, like we were discussing in the other thread, which brings the combination of speed, absolute stealth & range into one package that makes even a complete force package vulnerable.
The one system the EF has which gives it an edge in A2A is the Meteor. But again, the Meteor is not unique to the EF. Its on offer from MBDA/EADS to other customers who could integrate it as well. And the Sukhoi dudes appear pretty serious about introducing new LRAAMs as well. So again, its by no means certain that the Meteor will remain a “unique system”.
Nick_76But it is not factual.
ALR-94 development complexity, cost and time far exceeded that of any other avionics system on F-22. Ask yourself why USAF would pay for a system four times more costly and complex than DASS/Spectra if ALQ-124 IDECM, ALQ-211 AIDEWS, or ALQ-221 could be cheaply upgraded to DASS/Spectra standards? The answer is far greater capability than DASS/Spectra was needed for F-22’s primary sensor.
Dj, here there is also the point that the US aviation industry is not necessarily the most cost effective nor does it always have the best stuff “eva” just because it costs more. I know of US folks who have rated French EW pods higher than US gear, others who have pointed to similar systems worldwide which were likewise. So the simple point is what exactly does the ALR-94 have that DASS and SPECTRA dont? And what capabilities do DASS and SPECTRA possess to begin with?
And is the difference so huge in tactical terms that it reduces other worldwide systems to junk in comparison? I mean, if we actually look at current gear, there are many areas where the Israelis, and Euros are fielding comparable systems vs the US, in programs which are cheaper.
And from all I have read so far, it was not the ALR-94 which was the key PITA in the F-22 development, but rather its CIP which combines the backend of most F-22 systems, and has proved so hard to replicate that there is talk of the JSF guys dropping it altogether and sticking to a simpler, federated system.
Nick_76So their RWR are 70s and 80s vintage, without any upgrades since then?
No F-15/F-16 MLU gave the fighters all digital RWRs afaik. The newer F-16s & F-15’s may receive one, perhaps.
Nick_76Kopp make false assumptions.
The antenna area is not alone for the X-Band, he must subtract the L-Band antenna area.
Then have the Ibris-E not a antenna diameter of 90cm but 80cm!
The phase shifters make a loss of 3(ferrit)+0,5 dB(radant) = 3.5dB!
1. you must substract the from the antenna gain the noise values and the phase shifter loss. Gain resulting = Gain ant. – LNA noise – transmit phase shifter loss!:rolleyes:Kopp make this clearly false assumption with the only one reason, he will the F-22!
We should not forget the real life degeneration! The ranges figures apply to tracking, but in order for a target to be tracked it must first be acquired!
That degrade your Range with the exponent 0.5 for a ground based search Radar and for your Su-35 with a exponet of 0.75!
I dont even know where to begin with the number of mistakes you are making while accusing Kopp of making mistakes. The irony of it all.
To begin with – the great LBand antenna area- its only for the darn IFF. BFD.
Then the Irbis antenna dia, hand drawn estimates apart, all published literature till date puts the Bars/Irbis at 90 cm.
Third. The gain figures he is using come from the NIIP. For all anyone knows, that is the resultant gain. All in all, he makes reasonable assumptions and estimates, you on the other hand are determined to clutch at some straws, however limited they be, to prove it cant, cant be. Whatever! Your search vs tracking claims are also absolutely bogus. I have seen a bunch of systems with absolutely different figures. And please make the effort to type in understandable english. It would at least make your “anger” more understandable.
Nick_76I’m a fan of the RAAFs choice of the F-18 many years ago, it’s been pretty good value for money and most are still able to get into the air.
Years ago I was invited to Avalon where the F-18s were being assembled & tested, they were state of the art then, very impressive and not bad for an all-rounder.
They are all pretty long in the tooth now, I’m not sure what the latest with them is because I have lived in Norway for the last eight years.
cheers,
-John
Thank you for that wonderful pic.
The Hornet looks awesome against that background.
Nick_76So, likely hood of the PAK-FA being exported in any in any great numbers is highly unlikely…………….:confused:
MKI has 230 orders from India, some 28 from Algeria, and another 18 odd from Malaysia. The numbers for PAK-FA will be substantially higher as it will include orders from Russia, and there will be significant commonality between the Russian and Indian variants in most items anyways.
A 500-700 aircraft run for the PAKFA is possible, including possible orders from the RuN, IN, and even others for South American states such as Venezuala, Argentina, Brazil etc.
Sign In
