MM11The selected aircraft should allow the air force to project its power in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, which meant that they should have a bigger range and additional requirements such as AESA radars. This will have major implications for the contenders, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16 Falcon, RSK MiG-35 and Saab Gripen.
bye bye F16, Gripen and eurofighter!
Bye bye? What is this range supposed to be? AESA should be offered by any manufacturer.
MM11The Radar is a part of that suite.
It is part of the aircraft’s overall sensor suite, not part of the EWS!
MIG/Russia is offering 100% ToT, SAAB the same and parts of sweden.
So what? Do they propose EA as part of the package? ToT just means India is given full access to all technologies of the aicraft offered in a specific configuration.
Rumors mostly in forums, in this one BR etc.
Rumors, which are more likely to be based on wishful thinking, rather than given fatcs.
Ok you say EA is part of EW and says its enable by an AESA radar, and then you go on to say APG 80 do not support it, while in that video it says it does.
The video doesn’t mention EA anywhere. It speaks about the EW suite and the radar working simultaneously, I have explained that before, but you seem to prefer to ignore that rather than trying to understand the given facts.
Don’t the P8A also feature some EW elements other than surveillance ? It was also sold to India.
EA is not EW…
MM11‘the ew sutie operation is seamless and simultaneous full AESA radar operation in all modes’
READ again suite. As speak so often about F-16.net, read what they say about the EW suite:
The ALQ-165 electronic countermeasures system, also known as the Airborne Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ), is a sophisticated, high-power jamming system developed to fulfill both U.S. Navy and Air Force requirements – although the USAF abandonned the program a while ago. Missile warning systems on the Block 60 provide advanced warning of approaching missiles so the pilot can activate countermeasures in time. The Block 60 F-16 can accommodate both active and passive missile warning systems currently under development.
The EW suite is a seperate system dubbed FalconEdge, developed by NG it comprises the AN/ALR-56M RWR, AN/ALQ-165 ASPJ ECM system, AN/ALE-47 chaff/flare dispensers, the IR based MAWS (supposley AN/AAR-47) and the required computers and controls to manage the entire components (both manually and automatically). IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RADAR!!!
I know this that India in particular is looking at the AESAs EA capability in ther MRCA, and probably won’t accept watered down versions.
Good luck on that India will have to reject all contenders by that!
The Growler may be part of the deal if the SH is selected.
Says whom?
As for the video it clearly states that the AESA radar is a part of the Suite.
Video ends ‘ Integrated sensor suite, Supporting air to air, air to ground and electronic warfare’ – EW don’t mean simply jamming it also means EA.
The meaning of integrated sensor suite includes all the aircraft’s sensors such as radar, RWR etc. EW = Electronic Warfare. EA = Electronic Attack a part of EW and essentially nothing else than very powerful jamming, which is enabled by an AESA radar for example. The APG-80 DOESN’T FEATURE EA, however. Please try to understand what you consume. 😉 So far you obviously misunderstand what you read/hear.
MM11They apparently did and if you read the aviation news thread. AESA radars have been cleared for export for other customers as well.
Also i remember reading that several congressmen wanted America to have a better AESA radar operational before selling the APG 80, hence they implemented the F 15s AESA radar first and then this.
Well India is by no means a big ally of U.S (not like the NATO folks anyway) and we are being offered the APG 80 and the more capable APG 79. The matter of fact is that the Gulf states which are allied to it are more important to the U.S than its NATO allies in a post cold war scenario, in future India will be just as as important, if it not already is.
As for India not getting it, its already on offer the radars (the source codes (for weapons integration mainly) may or may not be offered) France is offering its AESA with full source codes, and EF is willing to make us a partner. Its a buyers market if you don’t offer what the others do, you will simply lose out. 10-16 billion dollars at a time of economic crisis is not something anyone would pass by.
The APG 80 is only operational in the Block 60s the UAE and the whole suite in that video is for that aicraft. it also mentions about export.
OMG you obviously miss the point again! I speak about the EW capability (called Electronic Attack – EA) of the radar not being exported! I didn’t say that the AESA radars itself aren’t exported :rolleyes:
The NG video presents the APG-80 radar and the aircraft’s EW suite (called FalconEdge). Both are individual Systems! Get it.
MM11Yes this is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifkBKX5f5NI&feature=related
Notice the importance given to EW.
Thanks for the link. I watched the video twice and while the F-16E/F blk 60s AN/APG-80 radar and its electronic warfare suite are presented, they are highlighted as seperate systems! The video doesn’t indicate that the APG-80 radar itself provides an EW capability, it just mentions that the systems are well integrated and that the ECM can jam multiple threats, while the radar can operate in the full range of its modes. That means there is no interference between the radar and the jamming system.
I also checked the official NG website for more information about the radar itself and it says this:
The APG-80 is designed to search continuously for and track multiple targets within the forward hemisphere of the aircraft. As a result of increased operational flexibility, pilots will be able to simultaneously perform air-to-air search-and-track, air-to-ground targeting and aircraft terrain-following.
Additional advances of the APG-80 agile beam radar include much greater detection range, high-resolution synthetic aperture radar imagery, and a two-fold increase in reliability compared to conventional, mechanically scanned radars.
EW capabilities are not mentioned!
So sorry but your claim about the APG-80 providing EW capabilities is wrong as I said before!
But it’s not a surprise given the fact that this radar is just fitted to the blk 60 which was specifically designed for and just sold to the UAE. While the UAE is a strategic partner for the US, meaning an ally it’s not a NATO member or close ally! Do you seriously believe that the US will sell such a brand new and top secret technology to such a country? Let alone that electronic attack (EA) is still under development and not even available on front line fighters operational with the US military! So how could the UAE get a radar with such a capability? That the hardware of the APG-80 might be able to support such a capability in theory, doesn’t mean that the software required to perform that kind of task exists and the blk 60s were all delivered between 2005 and 2007. So there is no way that the aircraft delivered feature EA and I highly doubt that even India will get it for the F-16IN for the very same reasons as stated above for the UAE!
MM11And there is no evidence of the Captor being superior to APG 80 either. Actually there was a youtube link a few pages back which shows the EW capabilities of APG 80/block 60.
Wasn’t it you who claimed:
I was talking strictly BVR and currently the APG 80 should hold an edge over the Capto
?
And BTW I checked the thread and found no youtube link concerning the APG-80, feel free to post the link in your next post. And please note that I’m talking about the F-16E/F block 60 Desert Falcon operated by the UAE, not about the F-16IN which isn’t operational, let alone existing in a production representive form.
MM11Try it…you will probably get banned for editing and adding trash for a few days atleast.
Sarcasm isn’t a strength of yours. What I meant by that, is that everyone can write at wiki. This website isn’t reliable.
But to cut it short there is no evidence of the APG-80 being superior to Captor in general, let alone that there’re NO EA capabilities. AESA providing the potential doesn’t mean it’s there and EA is in fact not a capability of the APG-80.
MM11When was the last long range IRST based kill .
IRST isn’t required to kill an F-16, but it is yet another sensor to contribute to the pilots SA.
If you can give sources that the Captors range is longer than APG 80s 🙂 I would accept.
Lol
You are being sarcastic for no reason now. I am simply asking for a source, even Wikipedia will do….
Lol. Oh wait a second I will write the Captor provides 5 times the range of the APG-80 at Wiki. Should be enough for you ROFL.
And don’t forget the superior EW capabilities that comes with an AESA radar.
Lol
MM11How about a block 60 with AESA armed with AIM 120 D :-??. I think in BVR the edge will be slight and in WVR total………..
The AESA radar alone won’t change much, let alone the AN/APG-80! If you speak about blk 60 take into account that these aircraft lack MIDS and JHMCS and even AIM-9X to my understanding. That means no NCW capabilities and VASTLY inferior WVR capabilities as well. I like yet to see any source which suggests that the blk 60 features sensor fusion (and I speak about blk 60 not F-16IN). No IRST, inferior EWS, bastly inferior performance in the relevant areas, likely inferior MMI. And why putting the AIM-120D into equation? AIM-120D isn’t operational, let alone that apart the US no one will receive this weapon in the near term. So compare an existing platform with its performance, capabilities and weapons and no a fanboy customised aircraft which doesn’t exist!
MM11I thought that Su-35 WAS Su-27SM2 ????
The Su-27SM2 (Small Mod Phase 2) is/was also designated Su-27BM (Big Mod).
Su-27BM is the domestic designation.
There is no ‘Su-35BM’ – the correct designation is Su-35 – and it is the designation of Su-27BM when exported.
At least it was – the Russians now seem to be referring to the procurement of ‘Su-35’ (but not Su-35BM) for the home market.
Ken
PS – I know that Small Mod and Big Mod are slight simplifications, but it is convenient to thing of them that way.
The “S” in SM doesn’t stand for small, but for series and the “M” for modernised. But the Su-35/T-10BM is indeed the Su-27SM2. The Su-27BM looks much like a creation and not like a real existing designation, very much like Su-27PU which was derived from T-10PU, but which was in fact never an official designation, but creation.
MM11To date contracts were signed to upgrade 48 Su-27 to the Su-27SM. The Su-35 seems to be relative save if you believe those russian press releases and these upgraded and new aircraft will bridge the time until enough PAK FAs are available and remains yet to be seen if the quite optimistic plans materialise.
BTW the Su-35s technologies are a spin off from the PAK FA project, not the other way round. The first prototype/s of the PAK FA will use some of the components from the Su-35 as the final ones won’t be ready on time.
I wonder why so much people look at the J-XX at all. China will probabley even need longer to get it finished, let alone that they still depend on the russians to a large extend, and I have my doubts about the J-XX and its capabilities in comparison to the PAK FA, let alone F-22/F-35.
MM11@SunnyFromOz
Don’t take this as offence, but I hope you understand that people are a bit sceptical about claims like “I’m an industry insider” from an anonymous person. I don’t want to judge about you yet, as I haven’t read any other posts from you (or can’t remember). Though it’s way off topic, I’m a bit curious about the RAAFs supposed evaluation you mentioned.
I’m aware that the Australian opposition issued a request for a fair and transparent competition for evaluating potential alternatives to the planned F/A-18F blk II buy as a stop gap solution until the F-35 arrives. But AFAIK it was nothing more than a paper exercise, rather than a comprehensive evaluation including flight tests.
I have my doubts that the Russian would have led austrialian pilots flown their newest Su-35, which is not the Terminator BTW. Let alone that it’s entirely new to me that the type was even considered. I know that the Flanker was considered back in the 90s but that is at least a decade ago. I’m also curious about the supposed evaluation of the Rafale and Typhoon, as there are no Rafales based at Orange, nor are Typhoons based at Waddington. Let alone that evaluating the Typhoon at three different airbases in 3 different countries sounds a bit odd.
If half of that what you claimed about this evaluation is true, could you provide any evidence? Shouldn’t we have heared about such a comprehensive evaluation before?
Just wondering.
regards
MM
MM11Do you want proof that it will be there at aero India ?
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/aeroindia/index.html
Please read and it clearly says the Super Viper and not any other Viper. It will be the real thing.
How do you know it do not exist in the propsoed form ? Lockheed appear very confident and I am sure they have a prototype, which is not all that hard with a few minor differences from the Block 60
If this press release is true I stand corrected, but I’m sceptical because if there would be a F-16IN demonstrator available right now we would have heared about it and its maiden flight. I’m not aware of anything like that happened. Anyway the AeroIndia isn’t far away and we’ll soon know more.
No you miss the point, rather than saying its less agile give me some proof, like Pilot testimony’s, comparitive data, DACT performance reports etc.
Sorry my friend I believe LM over you unless you can give proof.
There were pilot comments on the blk 50/52s agility in comparison to older lighter variants and those pilots clearly stated that the newer versions are less agile, for the reason stated above: WINGLOADING. I’m sure someone can give a direct link to your satisfaction, I haven’t one by hand. As the blk 60 and IN are even more heavy and a bit draggier due the CFTs the situation won’t improve, but get even more worse! That’s simple physics and pretty much basics for anyone who deals with combat aircraft, that you chose to ignore this very simple facts is somewhat annoying, but everyone is free to believe what he wants.
MM11Non Existent ? It is based on block 60 shares most of the stuff including radar. And its going to be present in Aero India 2009 that’s Feb 11-15 so it must exist.
Sharing stuff with the blk 60 doesn’t mean it’s the same. There will be changes and I would be more than surprised to see the F-16IN in Aeroindia. They will sent something else, because the F-16IN does not exist in its proposed form, though the blk 60 might be somewhat close. It’s reasonable they will use a blk 60 on loan from the UAE for the evaluation.
We will see after evaluations and when the winner is selected won’t we ?
That the F-16IN is agile? Lol. Sorry again but you miss the point.
MM11This should clear things up…………;)
It doesn’t because the type in question was the F-16E/F blk 60, not the non existing F-16IN.
Sign In
