MM11Hi all.
Do any one know what the size/diameter of the N-011 BAR antenna and the N-035 Irbis-E are?Thx.
About 900 mm or so, maybe a bit more up to 1 m.
MM11Both Raytheon and NorthropGrumman offer replacement for APG 63 and APG 68. In all cases the AESA array is lighter than the MSA hardware that replaces while the cooling and electric installations remain the same.
Do you care to provide sources and compareable data rather than making generalised claims?
MM11Both Raytheon and NorthropGrumman offer replacement for APG 63 and APG 68. In all cases the AESA array is lighter than the MSA hardware that replaces while the cooling and electric installations remain the same.
Do you care to provide sources and compareable data rather than making generalised claims?
MM11The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is designed to defeat threats that will have been superceded well before this aircraft enters operational service. The performance of the F-35 is suffering seriously from the conflicting design requirements that it was intended to meet. As a result, the F-35 is shaping up to be a technological failure, a delivery schedule and ‘affordability’ failure, and a techno-strategic failure. This will place Britain in the position of having to look at replacement options, which are extremely limited in view of developing threat capabilities. The question that must inevitably arise is: ‘Should Britain Ask the United States for the F-22?’
the JOUST irrelevant?
the typhoon a 4th gen fighter?
:p
Nice flame try GlobalPress.:rolleyes:
MM11The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is designed to defeat threats that will have been superceded well before this aircraft enters operational service. The performance of the F-35 is suffering seriously from the conflicting design requirements that it was intended to meet. As a result, the F-35 is shaping up to be a technological failure, a delivery schedule and ‘affordability’ failure, and a techno-strategic failure. This will place Britain in the position of having to look at replacement options, which are extremely limited in view of developing threat capabilities. The question that must inevitably arise is: ‘Should Britain Ask the United States for the F-22?’
the JOUST irrelevant?
the typhoon a 4th gen fighter?
:p
Nice flame try GlobalPress.:rolleyes:
MM11– at page 14 there is a sort of LO ranking: the F 35 is considered only LO! Give me a break…
So what is the definition of LO and VLO, what’s the difference between them, apart VLO being stealthier? Where does LO and where does VLO start?
Apart from throwing around terms, people don’t bother with the details.
– at page 15 he compared the F 35 with the EF. He said the F35 is 2 tonnes heavier. Is more like 1.
11 t vs ~13 t is more 2 than 1.;)
– at the same page he states “similar normal fuel load” :p
Probabley taking Typhoon’s external fuel tanks into account. And the mission radius figures officially stated are not that different either. And don’t waste your time in trying to explain the merits of larger internal fuel vs. internal+external fuel.
MM11– at page 14 there is a sort of LO ranking: the F 35 is considered only LO! Give me a break…
So what is the definition of LO and VLO, what’s the difference between them, apart VLO being stealthier? Where does LO and where does VLO start?
Apart from throwing around terms, people don’t bother with the details.
– at page 15 he compared the F 35 with the EF. He said the F35 is 2 tonnes heavier. Is more like 1.
11 t vs ~13 t is more 2 than 1.;)
– at the same page he states “similar normal fuel load” :p
Probabley taking Typhoon’s external fuel tanks into account. And the mission radius figures officially stated are not that different either. And don’t waste your time in trying to explain the merits of larger internal fuel vs. internal+external fuel.
MM11Here we run into a designationconfusion, when each Captor is from A-E.
In German the E stands for ‘Electronic’ and does mean the adding of the AESA-modules to the Captor radar. Maybe I can learn something from your details. Do you have a link about that?
Well the “E” actually is just the next logical letter from the designation system, but it suits the “Electronic” term perfectly, hence the AESA version is often designated Captor-E next to the fact that the next production version would be called that way too, AESA or not. Look the so called Captor-M doesn’t exist in reality, by the means of official designations.
Designations were/are as following:
ECR-90A = first prototype flown aboard the BAC 1-11 in January 1993
ECR-90B = Modified version with new antenna due problems with the radome/antenna config in the A model
ECR-90C = first Eurofighter compatible version which went into production in 1998 as Captor-C for T1 modells
Captor-D = modified version with hardware changes including a new radar computer in production for T2 modells
Captor-E = the next version for T3 examples, supposley with AESA
As said CAESAR is a demonstrator based on the Captor-D, retaining much of its components to keep costs down, for risk reduction and accelerated development. CAESAR is by no means an operational radar, though it could be produced if required. Yet the industry offers various more advanced AESA options as part of T3 and independent how this will be exactly configured it will be dubbed Captor-E.
Most people confuse CAESAR with Captor-E and believe that what is shown in the CAESAR demonstrator is basically what you will see in T3 examples as Captor-E. While this might be the case depending on which option is selected by the customers, it’s not a must be situation.
MM11Here we run into a designationconfusion, when each Captor is from A-E.
In German the E stands for ‘Electronic’ and does mean the adding of the AESA-modules to the Captor radar. Maybe I can learn something from your details. Do you have a link about that?
Well the “E” actually is just the next logical letter from the designation system, but it suits the “Electronic” term perfectly, hence the AESA version is often designated Captor-E next to the fact that the next production version would be called that way too, AESA or not. Look the so called Captor-M doesn’t exist in reality, by the means of official designations.
Designations were/are as following:
ECR-90A = first prototype flown aboard the BAC 1-11 in January 1993
ECR-90B = Modified version with new antenna due problems with the radome/antenna config in the A model
ECR-90C = first Eurofighter compatible version which went into production in 1998 as Captor-C for T1 modells
Captor-D = modified version with hardware changes including a new radar computer in production for T2 modells
Captor-E = the next version for T3 examples, supposley with AESA
As said CAESAR is a demonstrator based on the Captor-D, retaining much of its components to keep costs down, for risk reduction and accelerated development. CAESAR is by no means an operational radar, though it could be produced if required. Yet the industry offers various more advanced AESA options as part of T3 and independent how this will be exactly configured it will be dubbed Captor-E.
Most people confuse CAESAR with Captor-E and believe that what is shown in the CAESAR demonstrator is basically what you will see in T3 examples as Captor-E. While this might be the case depending on which option is selected by the customers, it’s not a must be situation.
MM11You confuse “CECAR” with “CAESAR”. The Captor is a modular-system.
I’m not confusing anything here, CECAR is a angelo-german government funded risk reduction programme. CAESAR is an industry funded demonstration programme. Though low risk measures has been applied. CAESAR is based on the Captor-D radar currently in production for T2 aircraft. Captor-E will be the designation for the next production version. While the industry has indicated that it owuld be possible to put the CAESAR in production by 2011 and that it could be offered as an upgrade for the Captor-D, Eurofighter is offering different AESA solutions as part of T3 and this radar will be called Captor-E. As of yet CAESAR and Captor-E is NOT the same.
MM11You confuse “CECAR” with “CAESAR”. The Captor is a modular-system.
I’m not confusing anything here, CECAR is a angelo-german government funded risk reduction programme. CAESAR is an industry funded demonstration programme. Though low risk measures has been applied. CAESAR is based on the Captor-D radar currently in production for T2 aircraft. Captor-E will be the designation for the next production version. While the industry has indicated that it owuld be possible to put the CAESAR in production by 2011 and that it could be offered as an upgrade for the Captor-D, Eurofighter is offering different AESA solutions as part of T3 and this radar will be called Captor-E. As of yet CAESAR and Captor-E is NOT the same.
MM11http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9812/FR9812c.htm
When the need arise the Captor will become the Captor-E alias CAESAR. A proven option after 2007, but a cost issue if the Tranche 3 will get that.
The most expensive part is the related software.
Captor-E is not CAESAR. CAESAR is just a demonstrator, Captor-E a production radar.
MM11http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9812/FR9812c.htm
When the need arise the Captor will become the Captor-E alias CAESAR. A proven option after 2007, but a cost issue if the Tranche 3 will get that.
The most expensive part is the related software.
Captor-E is not CAESAR. CAESAR is just a demonstrator, Captor-E a production radar.
MM11All 3 are correct.
This is the RWR system they use:
http://www.avitronics.co.za/Airborne/radar.htm
It’s an RWR designed by SAAB Avitronics of Capetown South Africa…
Thanks for the link, but is this actually the system used aboard the Su-30MKM?
MM11All 3 are correct.
This is the RWR system they use:
http://www.avitronics.co.za/Airborne/radar.htm
It’s an RWR designed by SAAB Avitronics of Capetown South Africa…
Thanks for the link, but is this actually the system used aboard the Su-30MKM?
Sign In
