crobatoNow this galls the nationalist MKK type, but the point is that in todays world, India for instance can pick and choose the best and ensure that it gets the best deal, and technology, if the Russians say no- there is always SELEX or ELTA
If the Russians say no, they will not give you the source codes and the electrical data needed to integrate their PGMs to Selex or ELTA. And even if they did, the integration and testing process can take as much as a year, adding years to the process. Just because fire control systems have “open architecture” does not mean integration is instant. Anyone who thinks like that has major bullgas in his brain. Every PGM has proprietary hardware specific code intended to operate and authorize them, similar to device drivers in computers.
Let us go back to your RCS figures. By the way, you need to reduce to 1.8m2 from 15m2 RCS just to get even a 25% range reduction. That is how ficky RCS reduction is. 4 or 5m2 RCS isn’t going to give you 30% range reduction from 15m2.
All that wont work in a scenario without AWACs and where two equivalent fighters slug it out.
Ergo- No F-22s.
I disagree with your statements in the latter paragraph. Not really related to this thread, so lets move on.
And where is your reasoning? You apparently don’t know how RWRs work do you? Much less from your statements, how BVR should work.
For instance: The KS-172 (per some reports), improvements to the radar, and finally, the Brahmos A for instance
Added to the above- a HADF pod, present today
The KS designation is used by the Russians to denote being experimental. Must be a fanciful leap to get something far from being debugged or thoroughly tested, with an unassured future, to be integrated already. We call this reasoning, counting the chickens before the eggs were laid.
Not that MKK is bad- the last version with the MS radar was truly as capable (bar GPS ordnance) as an earlier F-15 E
China has dropped the MKK and all purchases for it, to devote all resources to all inhouse projects like the J-10, J-11B, JH-7A and FC-1. This way they can make sure that all of China’s domestic PGMs and missiles can be compatible with their planes without involving Russian politics.
crobatoThat is a rational reply. The 4th power rule does limits ones options. But let me note further. A 5 mtr sq vs a 14-15 mtr square would be valid, otherwise we are comparing a loaded RCS reduced plane to a clean one (without RCS reduction).
We obtain approximately a 30% reduction in range.
It takes roughly about reducing your RCS by 1/16th of its former just to get a 50% reduction in range. Imagine something at 16m2 being detected at 100km. For that same radar, a 1m2 RCS would be detected at 50km.
crobatoAll that wont work in a scenario without AWACs and where two equivalent fighters slug it out. I disagree with your statements in the latter paragraph. Not really related to this thread, so lets move on.
It does work in a scenario without AWACs or GCI. It depends on which pilot would turn on his radar first, and therefore, broadcast his presence throughout the entire hostile area. The other pilot can rely on his RWR to get close enough and the F-22’s RWR, from what I heard, can let you do this. Heck, you don’t really need the F-22’s RWR to do this. Now if the other combatant has LPI or noninterceptable radar, that would count too since he can see you and you can’t see him. Another way of doing this also is using the IRST instead of the radar for a totally passive approach. This is the Flanker’s advantage against planes without an IRST.
crobatoYes, limited but useful- and beggars cant be choosers can they!
See if I have a xxx Km range missile (say) and I need to detect the opposite b lighter, TWS him and launch it, I would try and get in a proper position to snipe at him. Now suppose both of us have “equivalent radars” and AWACs is not in the picture, I would try to ensure that my most stealthy aspect (or one with all the fancy stuff my boffins could coat on) was towards him, so that I can squeeze out a few more miles whilst he is still seeking me and I can launch first.
The few seconds might make a difference, in my long lance reaching towards him and its seeker going “terminal”, whereupon I break and run scattering chaff and having my jammer bleat away (and praying)!
Every little bit counts
Does not make sense at all. You don’t snipe misisles at long range or you would guarantee losing them. The preferred tactic is to launch BVRAAMs at the last moment rather than at the farthest range, in order to put the target on the sweetest no escape zone and to give him the most minimal warning as possible. In the Gulf War, F-15s rely on “snap” attacks with their Sparrows. Instead of firing them at the longest range, they track the enemy, then at the last possible moment, they would “x-ray” the targets with their radars ala CWI illumination, then launch Sparrows. Given the radiant intensity of the illumination at closer ranges, the Sparrows get very quick locks, and targets have minimum time for evasion.
In order to obtain this advantage, you need to creep up on the enemy as long as possible. Hench the reduction of RCS becomes most necessary. The Stealth advantage has nothing to do with shooting targets at the farthest range, but to creep into the enemy and fire at him at the shortest least warning range.
Without AWACS support, with reliance on equivalent radars, RCS reduction is useless since both combatants would have given away their positions anyway by using radars on each other. RWRs today are good enough to determine even the radar modes the other aircraft is using on you, as well as provide bearing and range of the emitting aircraft. You won’t get extra kilometers advantage anyway, since you both need to come close enough anyway to launch based on your missile’s no escape zone, which is almost under 40km anyway.
As for the triplane design, the Russians are abandoning it in the latest Su-35 version.
crobatoF-8II displayed with PL-8, R-27, PL-5, PL-11 and the KH-31.
After looking at the picture again, I think the missile should be a YJ-91 rather than Kh-31. All known Kh-31 pictures in the PLA show a dark grey colored missile, not white with striping which is more typical of a development prototype.
As the pictured missile above is more likely to be a prototype, I say it is a YJ-91, and the J-8II there has a Chinese radar rather than Russian. This might be the first major evidence showing SEAD capabilities with the J-8IIs. As such this throws a wild factor in wargames, since this could greatly increase the known PLA capabilities on SEAD and antiradiation warfare, previously restricted to the MKKs and JH-7s. The J-8IIs are every bit as numerous, and there has been upgrades on existing airframes, not just making brand new airframes for the latest variants.
crobatoThe Kh-31P should work with the RWR, not the radar. The fire control system will provide stores and display management for the missile, but it is the RWR that will provide the targeting or cueing data for the missile.
The picture is interesting because of the combination of Russian and Chinese missiles here. But if this was really Russian, where is the R-73 and R-77? Mind you there is another J-8II photo that appears to have an R-77 and a Kh-31, but I cannot be sure of the validity of the photograph. If this was Chinese it would be easier to explain the limited integration of Russian weapons to include both the Kh-31P and the R-27, but not the R-77 and R-73. At the same time, it’s never been clear, and never been shown that a Russian radar has managed to integrate the PL-5, PL-8 and PL-11.
If this was a Chinese radar doing this, this might circumstantially confirm the rumored Kh-31P use of the J-8H variant and that similar capabilities might also be in store with the J-10.
crobatoMight be for aerodynamic reasons. No one can answer this without looking at the wind tunnel data.
crobatoPretty nice model. Where did you get, what brand and for how much?
crobatoThere isn’t thousands of J-7s and J-8s around. More like hundreds and at the most, somewhere well over a thousand combined. J-10s and J-11s probably slated to replace most of them. The number of potential replacements goes down every year, if not every month, for every J-10 and J-11 being built now. How many of the older planes would be left when the FC-1 is finally ready for service?
crobatoThis pic of a J-10B has its unit numbers. While blurry and unfocused, the numbers look like 10942 to me, making it another 3rd Division plane. Posted by gordonblade in the CDF.
crobatoJ-10B with spurious attempt to hide the background and unit numbers. And some nice Y-8 airliner pics but what is the boom on the tail for? Also a Y-8 balance beam. You can barely make out the civil registration number.
crobatoSorry, now I get it, can detect 40 targets, track ten and engage 2 in BVR, still very impressive.
The 10 targets tracked and 2 targets engaged is believable, if not conservative. I would say that’s pretty much the average; the Su-27’s radar also has a 10/2 capability as well as well as early APG-68s and Zhuks (both moved up to 10/4 ever since). The total number of targets detected or scanned isn’t that relevant.
crobatoThe Su-27SM is currently much closer to the first SMT listed up there. But that is in terms of technology level. The Su-27SM still has a bigger antenna and a more powerful emitter so that the radar performance is actually closer to the Zhuk-MF in range.
crobatoAlso, the argument that knowledge of one set of AMRAAM launch codes doesn’t give a general ability to integrate AMRAAMs is an argument against denying Galileo access to particular batches for fear it leaks information to China. Though I agree, the USA does suffer from paranoia in this respect. But it didn’t seem too bothered by British sales of airborne sea search radars to China, or GEC-Marconi (now the other bit of Selex) fitting Skyranger radars to the F-7 in the 1990s while integrating AMRAAM with other radars.
The Clinton era wasn’t exactly tight on this, and Clinton has been regarded as being soft on China and very pro-commerce. But comes during the Bush era the noose got much tighter and far more paranoid with the neocons and China threat faction being precedent.
It isn’t just the launch codes. It is also the frequency and protocol of the AMRAAM datalink. Knowing this bit of information would make the missile vulnerable to jamming. Another is knowing the frequency which the seeker operates.
I like to add the bit that STAero, the Singapore company that worked with Singaporean and Brazilian F-5 upgrades, also has a number of civil aeronautics projects involved in China.
crobatoFor the FIFTH time – I AM NOT SAYING THAT SINGAPORES, OR ANY OTHER F-5 USES AMRAAM. I have never said that. What I have said – and you have consistently denied – is that the former FIAR has access to AMRAAM launch codes, has built AMRAAM-compatible radars, & can integrate AMRAAM with Grifo. You now seem to be acknowledging that is true, but only indirectly, while falsely attributing some opinion to me I have never held nor stated, so you have something to argue with. There are a lot of words for that behaviour, none of them complimentary. Why don’t you do the decent thing, & say “OK, I was wrong about that”?
And I still do. Launch codes can be changed, and they might, from batch to batch, country to country. Totally at the disgression of the US. Just because FIAR is know owned by Selex does not mean Selex would pass the codes—which may be obsolete—to FIAR or any unauthorized entity as part of any previous agreement with the US.
The US is highly paranoid about passing secrets to companies that are involved with Pakistan and by relation to China. FIAR is proposing radars for Chinese made fighters sold to Pakistan, but also with the long term hope of actually selling radars to the PLAAF if the embargo is lifted.
The PDF you link to (from 2003, I think), is quite interesting. It clearly states that the Grifo-F (P2804) & Grifo-M (P2800?) are similar, except for the antenna, & says nothing about processor differences. This is exactly the same as other literature, which also describes other Grifo models, including the 2801 & 2803. As you say (in a needlessly offensive manner), Grifo is a family, not a single radar. But the -F/-L/-M constitutes a subfamily of very similar radars within the larger Grifo family. Some of the other models are optimised for surface search, for maritime strike, & I doubt anyone would ever consider trying to integrate a BVR AAM with them. But if you read the PDF carefully, you see that in the general information applicable to all three models described in it, i.e. the Grifo-F, L & M (M3 for Mirage III, M21 for MiG-21) it says “Compatible with IR/semi-active/active missiles”. That’s pretty unambiguous. And since it says above that the radar weighs 85kg, but the Grifo-M (with its slightly larger antenna) weighs 87kg, it’s hard to say it doesn’t apply to the Grifo-F. It also says, at the start, referring to the whole family -“It is fully compatible with semi-active and active missiles”.
The Grifo M, as sold to Pakistan and operational with Mirage III upgrades, doesn’t have the SARH/ARH capability. Kind of interesting really.
Sign In
