LokeHow many channels does the RBE2 AESA got?
LokeFrom the AN/APG-79 brochure:
An advanced four-channel receiver/exciter gives the APG-79 wide bandwidth capability and the ability to generate a broad spectrum of waveforms for air-to-air, air-to-ground and electronic warfare missions.
Lokelink:
““Saab is looking globally for customers, and it has a realistic chance of securing orders in countries like India [and] Brazil. It is investing a lot more resources in marketing its wares in South America and Asia. This could lead to a payoff,” Peeters said.”what is saab smoking? can company shareholders really think they are managing the company properly when they consider they have a ‘realistic’ chance of selling to INDIA?
i mean, sure, they can believe there is a remote possibility of that happening…
but when Dassault, IAF, Indian MoD, and HAL are all affirming the progress of negotiations and prospects for completing the contract, how is it ‘realistic’ for that to happen?
Unlike most European countries India sees a real need for a strong defence (due to both China and Pakistan).
They are currently way below the number of a/c they should have, in addition the numbers are dropping rapidly.
They are working on the LCA and have made some progress but are way behind where they should have been.
Rafale deal has been delayed.
If you add all this one may conclude that Gripen may still have a chance in India; perhaps not instead of Rafale*, but as a supplement to Rafale, and maybe more as an LCA mk2 replacement…
*And it could actually replace the 63 “extra” Rafale..
I think Gripens potential future in India would be more linked to LCA issues than Rafale delays though.
LokeRegarding slide 10: it says “new AESA” in phase 2; then “Radar gen II AESA” in phase 4; then “4 channel AESA” in phase 5.
Anybody got ideas on what these different AESAs refer to?
Could the phase 2 AESA be the pre-Selex AESA they worked on some years back? Or has Selex updated their AESA from phase 2 to 4?
And what does “4 channel AESA” in phase 5 refer to?
LokeSum up:
– They claim more than 500 flights has been made. I firmly believe that is a big pile of malarky. Correct number is around 300.
– They claim that top speed is 500 km more than F-22, and say that T-50’s top speed is 2500 km. I don’t think i need to point out just how BS that is.
– It is also claimed that T-50 is lighter and has greater range than F-22, which sounds correct.
– T-50 exceeded expectations, in for example supercruise and super maneuverability.Regarding T-50-2, i guess you missed the quote i posted on first page. 😉
If some of the testing was done in secrecy how do you know it is only 300 hours?
It says above “maximum speed exceeding 2,500 km/h”; but it does not say by how much.
LokeWhat I don’t quite get is that according to some news outlets the decision in Brazil has been delayed because of “weak economy” — however if they expect the economy to pick up in the next few years there should be no reason to delay!
Consider e.g. the Indian deal. Decision was made in January 2012, 1.5 years ago. And they have not even signed the contract. Even after agreeing on the contract, there will normally take 3 years before delivery starts. So, typically 4 years after a decision has been made…
If you add to the above that Sweden has offered to delay payments even further (until after the delivery!) then we are talking even more years into the future.
This makes me believe that there may be more to the delays than just “weak economy”; also, it does not look good for Saab if the offer to delay payments until after delivery is not enough to make them go for the Gripen… Thus their first choice is probably Rafale or SH.
However as I linked to some weeks back, the FAB complained about the “tech transfer” requirements as being a show-stopper.
IF we are to believe the French that their tech transfer is much better than what the US can offer (and I tend to believe this) then I see two options:
1. They want to have the SH but the president refuse to approve because of lack of tech transfer
2. Rafale may be acceptable from a “tech transfer” (and capability) P.O.V but too expensive
As stated above, Gripens only chance is that it becomes a compromise solution that has an acceptable price and acceptable tech transfer, however since Gripen has not already been chosen I think it means that it’s chances are not very good.
What can change is:
1. The US can offer better tech transfer (unlikely?)
2. Rafale can become cheaper due to sales to India (but Indian contract has not been signed yet); still will this be enough?
3. Brazilian economy can become strong enough to support Rafale purchase
Perhaps Saabs only hope is that Rafale fails in India and that Brazil’s economy remains sluggish…
And Boeings only hope is probably guarantees from the relevant US committees that tech transfer to Brazil will be ground-breaking…
LokeThanks Rii — although that is much more sensible than the nonsense coming from JSR, projecting GDP growth rates so many years into the future seems a challenge.
In fact according to official sources Brazil had a mere 0.9% growth in 2012:
http://www.brasil.gov.br/para/press/press-releases/march-2013/brazil-sees-0.9-gdp-growth-in-2012
LokeKeating said he was not an advocate of the F-35 joint strike fighter, but it would be a “good arrow in the quiver, but it’s not the only arrow in the quiver.” The reason, according to Keating, was the F-22 Raptor fighter and B-2 Spirit bomber.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130610/DEFREG03/306100020/America-s-Juggling-Act-China
What does he mean by “not an advocate of the F-35”!?
Oh well this is a Navy guy and I do have the impression the Navy guys were somewhat less enthusiastic about the F-35 than the USAF and USCM.
Perhaps it’s the range that they find dis-satisfactory in a 40-year perspective?
LokeKONGSBERG successfully completes fit check of Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
KONGSBERG and Lockheed Martin have completed a fit check of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) in the internal carriage bay of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft.
This test follows just four weeks after the JSM conducted a fit check on the external pylons.
As part of this second fit check, the JSM was loaded into the JSF’s internal carriage bay and conducted a series of tests to prove the physical characteristic of the JSM complies with the requirements for internal carriage.
Picture at the link:
LokeJSM test pictures and video
Great video of JSM and a cooperative target.
Actually that’s the NSM (not JSM) launch linked to above… still it’s a nice article, thanks for linking.
LokeNew, very interesting article from Craig Hoyle (Milirary Editor, Flight International).
PARIS: Rafale’s starring role over Mali
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-rafales-starring-role-over-mali-386627/
Interesting indeed.
Tricot also notes that with six air-to-surface weapons, one Rafale is capable of striking the same number of targets in a single sortie as three Mirage 2000Ds. Also, “it’s more reliable, much more comfortable and has more power”, he adds.
Can the Mirage carry only 2 a2g weapons?
I also wonder about the number of refuellings:
On the morning of 13 January, the pilots tasked with performing operation Montezuma took off, at the start of what was to be a campaign-longest 9h 45min strike mission covering 2,970nm (5,500km), before joining the fixed-wing assets already in N’Djamena.
“This is a quick reaction capability: we were not on alert,” notes Lt Col François Tricot, officer commanding 2/30 Sqn, which had only been stood-up at Mont-de-Marsan in June 2012 and has so far received 18 of its full complement of 20 single-seat Rafale Cs. Almost 60 personnel are currently assigned to the unit, including pilots, maintainers and an intelligence cell to support reconnaissance activities.
DIPLOMATIC CLEARANCE
With diplomatic clearances not yet in place to transit Algerian airspace, the Rafales were required to route to their destination in Chad over Morocco, Mauritania and Mali, with six air-to-air refuellings performed per aircraft from accompanying C-135FR tankers.The four strike aircraft were carrying a potent mix of weapons, with one pair armed with six Raytheon GBU-12 Paveway II 230kg (500lb) laser-guided bombs each, and the others each carrying six of Sagem’s AASM “Hammer” INS/GPS-guided bombs. The latter weighs around 340kg per round, with its propulsion system enabling a stand-off range performance of up to 32.4nm.
[…]
All sorties launched from N’Djamena were of long duration, because of the distances involved in reaching the combat area. Flying a 5h-plus reconnaissance mission would require three visits to a tanker, while longer-duration close air support missions would double this.
So a 5h+ mission would require 3 visits to a tanker, and the 9.45hour mission required 6 tanking visits.
Is this what people would expect?
Would other a/c be able to do this? I assume the SH and Typhoon would in theory be able to do something similar, and the F-15 of course (it would be able to do even better probably) but I doubt the F-16 would be able to do this with such a low number of a/c and tankings? Or am I wrong?
Lokerumor is that given how long this is taking and new aircraft development.. i would not be surprise if they redid a tender with 5th gen fighters.. in which we’d see F-35 and Pak-fa on the table.
pak-fa would suit brazil well.
Perhaps, but then again perhaps not — if tech transfer is really critical then both F-35 and PAK FA may have some issues.
Besides, F-35 is quite expensive both to purchase and to operate. I would be very surprised if PAK FA is much cheaper…
It seems Brazilian economy is currently not very strong, and political will to invest in expensive military equipment is weak. Of course that could change after the election (the political will I mean).
LokeWell… A long time ago their airforce preferred Rafale…
well, if true then that is a testament to the capabilities they expected to see in the Rafale, just as the statement that they prefer F-35 today is a testament of the capabilities they expect to see in the F-35.
My point was not that they will buy what the air force expressed a preference for, merely that a large number of air forces worldwide is showing such a strong interest in the F-35, and that this should tell us something — it should tell us that they think it will be a very very capable platform.
The final choice will of course depend on price, politics, tech transfer, offsets (and in some instances, corruption). But that was not my point 😉
LokeNSM launched against the old frigate KNM Trondheim:
http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/65152/her-sprenger-de-fregatten-med-ny-super-rakett
A lot of bang for the bucks!
Edit: another link with video, but without the annoying commercial in the link above. Also some text and still photos:
LokeLoke – Three observations. The first is that, regardless of merit or risk, SK is looking at three very different offers, whether in terms of capability, industrial participation or technology transfer. Second, KFX is the X factor and highly controversial in itself. Third, the conflicting signals emanating from Korean sources indicate vigorous internal log-rolling in process.
sure; I was just qutoing an article that said the air force preferred the F-35 🙂
Sign In
