From http://www.aeronautics.ru…….

I don’t see anything about tracking range…….perhaps your figures are a bit over exaggerated?

Not really.

http://www.concise.org/aerospace/archive/aerospace_archive434.html

“The Kopye radar system, which the Fazotron company derived from the MiG-29M aircraft radar, makes it possible to detect and track up to eight targets at a distance of 57 kilometres and carry out missile attacks against two of them simultaneously.”

That is a big difference from 11nm locking range of the APQ-159V5.

I used to have the old Phazotron webpage, and it listed 60km for the Kopyo for a look up, lock on range, 80km for the Zhemchug.

Who said anything about the radar in the F-5 being more powerful? With the detection ranges in the order of about 40 nm according to that PDF then the radar is roughly similar to what is provided the Bison via Kopyo from what I can tell.

You didn’t address the issue about the difference between search, tracking and lock on modes. They are all different, and even in the same radar, has different ranges. The Kopyo is engaging at 57km extent.

Furthermore, the Kopyo has longer ranges over the Elbit range if the claims are to be beleived

http://milparade.udm.ru/25/070.htm

“Comparison of the performance characteristics of the EL/M-2001 rangefinder and EL/M-2032 radar with those of the Kopyo radar and analysis of the performance characteristics of the fighter aircraft using them show that the Kopyo radar has a considerable advantage over the abovementioned sensors in the following areas:

– greater air-to-air operating range due to the use of a high-power transmitter and availability of a high repetition frequency mode;

– greater air target kill range in operation into the forward hemisphere due to the use of the missiles fitted with radar homing heads (semiactive R27R1 and active RVV-AE). “

As far as Derby goes, the datalink issue has been solved, though obviously I can’t take credit for that find. F-5’s will be able to launch this weapon outside the range of WVR weapons and obviously this is a good thing. Having some BVR capability is better than none at all.

No proof that any F-5 can use the Derby.

Where exactly are you getting that information? F-5’s are seen fairly often with stores much larger than an AIM-120 on the outboard pylons…..stores like the AGM-65 Maverick which weighs roughly twice the AIM-120 as well as Mk-82 500-lb. bombs or rocket pods weighing around 400 to 500 pounds……..the outboard stations are quite well stressed to handle fairly heavy loads….

Are you talking about the wingtip pylons? You can’t put Mavericks there.

By the way what is the point of the missile speed argument. AAM’s have always been much faster than fighters…..what makes the AMRAAM any less effective in close because of its speed. The AIM-9 is faster than any fighter, as is the R-73, R.550, heck……any AAM’s. Besides I never said AMRAAM was a better close in weapon. I just said in certain situations it can be put to good use, and the USAF takes that into account when teaching ACM on F-16’s and F-15’s.

AMRAAM is not an ideal weapon for close in, that’s why you got AIM-9X.

Since clearly I’m wrong on this whole AMRAAM and F-5 being a real combination would you care to prove that I’m wrong? As of now all you’ve said is that there has been no photograph or official statements……..if indeed that means there is no coupling of the two then why do so many sources that state all the details of the upgrade include this in the write-up? Did someone just make it out of thin air? To answer this you’re going to have to come up with some type of theory, and I can’t wait to hear it…….

Why don’t you quote these sources? I can’t find any other source except this Mike Yeo, and it does not sound authoritative at all. I have been asking you a while and you have produced not a thing.

I don’t have to prove that you are wrong. I simply have to prove absense of evidence and there is absence. You have to prove that you are right. You are the one who have to prove that your F-5s got AMRAAM/Derbys when there is no authoritative proof of these.

I remember a time when I asked about the C-701 weapon on the J-10 and you said it had that capability yet I’ve seen no such photos. Perhaps they have surfaces now if you care to provide any, but at the time they weren’t yet you insisted the aircraft had that capability. You see where I’m going with this? You’re not playing the ball game using the same rules as I am.

Why would the J-10 ever use the C-701? It is an export for Iran.

I’ve read way too many reports about the upgrade to believe that it wasn’t true, at least in terms of the aircraft are wired and ready for the weapon.

You are saying you read too many reports so why don’t you cough them up instead of saying this over and over again.

They might not carry it on a regular basis, but when an airplane is wired for something you better treat it as if it has that capability because you never know when one might take-off with whatever capability is in question is hanging under the wings…….

Nope. Just because a plane has the potential does not mean it actually has the capability. Does Pakistan’s F-16As have the potential to use AIM-7M Sparrows? Yes. Do they have the actual capability? No. Does the USAF F-15E Strike Eagle have the potential to use AGM-84 Harpoon? Yes. Does it actually have the capability? No.

And what about Python IV? Many sources also say Python was a part of the upgrade like Chile’s Tigre III’s…..yet I’ve seen no Python IV as of yet on an F-5S or F-5T.

WE may need to reverify this.

Just the same old AIM-9J’s (or maybe AIM-9P’s…not sure which the RSAF has if they don’t have both). So let me ask you this. If you’re going to spend all of this money upgrading a combat aircraft with a new radar and avionics wouldn’t it be wise to give it some new air-to-air weapons to go along with its better air-to-air radar?

You can but not necessarily.

The Python 4/5 adaptation may be tied to the ELBIT radar. It is called market competition. It’s called a package deal. The Israelis in one side, the Italians on the other. Why would Rafale help FIAR win the radar contract when it should be helping ELBIT? If you pick my radar (ELBIT), you can use the Pythons. You choose a competitor, I won’t support you. Americans and Russian defense firms play this ploy all the time.

In theory if I buy a Russian radar upgrade for my F-5, I can use the R-73s, but don’t expect to make the R-73 work on an ELBIT radar.

Maybe you can work out a deal to get the Python 4/5 to work on the Grifo. But that integration and development process will take a bit more time and money compared to the “total” and already done package of ELTA with Python missiles.

I only saw a single sentence referrring to the radar as an AGM-68VM and to make the F-16 use the Rafale Python 4/5 missile. That’s about it. I don’t really know much what goes on inside the Python 4/5 to have any idea what the upgrades or modifications are. I must add though, that the Python 5 seeker works like an infrared TV camera, and I am hypothesizing it may be of some benefit to display what the seeker sees into one of the MFDs. That sort of turns the seeker into an IRST. At the same time, if the missile infrared seeker is indicating target position into your HUD or HMS, there should be some kind of accomodation with the radar data for sensor fusion.

The first IR AAMs are fired off Sabrejets without any radar and so on and on. So did a lot of other jets, MiG-19s, F-5As, Fantans,. So I don’t know what is your point. Radar cueing came with all aspect IR AAMs to get faster, more accurate, more offbore target locking, and was a major step in increasing the lethality of IR AAMs. Just because you can do it without radar does not mean it’s any better. Same with gunsighting.

couldn’t help but comment on this latest discussion because it’s very interesting.

I like Scramble.. both the egg and the site.. but according to the latter, it seems that all of Turkey’s F-5s are stationed at Konya.. (or NF-5s in their designation system).. and they are all As and Bs.
http://www.scramble.nl/tr.htm

As for the Derby.. I’m with Crob on this one..
the weight is what I’m looking at..

the AIM-120A is 335.2lb ( 152.05 kg )
the Mica is 242.5 lb (110 kg)
the Derby is 260 lb (118 kg)

it is significantly lighter than the AMRAAM, and more on par with the MICA. I just have a hard time believing a lighter missile has the range of the heavier AMRAAM.

It should be noted that the Python 3 is about 110/115kg. The R-73 is about 85kg.

Derby does have a datalink (and presumable R-Darter as well). This was covered in Jane’s a while back, the article is in the Missiles forum somewhere I think.

Thanks. When I first saw the Derby in a mockup, I didn’t see any datalink.

Cannot find any reference of Derbies with the Chilean Air Force. Their F-16s are getting a radar upgrade but specifically to allow them to use Python 4s.

I am checking at the Chilean F-5Es, and so far I am only seeing the plane equipped with Python 3s and 4s.

Nonsense. What Turkey does with its F-5As is not relevant to what Singapore may have done with its F-5Es. Singapores upgrade was to keep its planes current as combat aircraft, not turn obsolete fighters into trainers. As for the

Those are F-5Es and not F-5As. The radar upgrade I showed you is for F-5E. There is no indication at all that Turkey wants to make their F-5Es into trainers.

I know. So what does it have to do with Norways F-5As, which is what you referenced it in relation to? Or Singapores F-5Es, which have had that radar removed & replaced by a newer one?

Read the PDF again. It is for the F-5E.

This doesn’t even make sense. Are you trying to say every air force with BVR missiles must use trainers sapable of firing them? Or what? For the moment, I’ll assume it’s just a little linguistic difficulty. You’re also (consistently) ignoring the significant differences between an F-5A & E. It’s virtually a new plane.

Do you understand something about radar or anything? The F-5A and the F-5E pretty much does not have any significant difference in the radar size or something.

As a matter of fact, on the F-20 Tigershark, the nose was significantly redesigned to allow for an APG-67, a radar which I would consider to be the absolute minimum for a BVR capable radar.

You are the one who wants to assert the F-5 having AMRAAM when

* There is no proof in photographs, mockups

* No proof in official brochures from Northrop Grumman, from FIAR and not even from the Singaporean company that did the upgrade.

* No official mention from the Singaporean Air Force.

Thanks for that. At last, you’ve given a clear answer which sort of makes sense. I presume what you mean is that NG isn’t doing the work itself, but putting customers in touch with SEI, who’ll do it on their behalf. But one quibble: they’re not using the radar to upgrade F-5s, it’s the existing radar they’re offering to upgrade.

What is it that you don’t understand about a radar upgrade? Do you understand that APG-63 V1 and V2 and V3 are all each practically different and newer radars from each other? What about APG-66V1 and V2? The V2 upgrade is practically a new radar. There is very little in common between APG-68 V3 and V9. The use of APG, AW, APQ are designations officially set by the Pentagon. It tells you nothing about what the radar is, and don’t think that an APG-66V2 is just an “upgrade” of V1. It is practically a new radar.

1) I don’t know in detail, & I’ve not pretended to.
2) I know, of course: antenna size limits performance. But two radars with the same size antenna & physical size of other components won’t automatically have the same capability, as you know, & it’s ridiculous of you to pretend otherwise. Otherwise, why have Singapore, Brazil & Chile not kept the old radar, but replaced it? If their new Grifos or Elta radars have the same performance, why spend the extra money? Were they all too stupid to realise that it’s impossible to fit a better radar in the same space?

Like I said, you have no idea that APQ-159 V5 is a brand new radar just like the examples mentioned above. The NG upgrade literally takes off the old radar and replaces it with a new one. These new radars have correspondingly newer generation electronics, and I don’t think FIAR or ELBIT’s electronics are any better than that of the US manufacturer. In fact, there tends to be similar shared components used from the same parts pool.

When you upgrade a radar, it is a total package. New antenna, new processors, new software, new wiring. You cannot mix the old stuff due to generational incompatibilities, due to deterioration and corrosion from age, and even the electronics can’t talk across generations.

In case you haven’t noticed, I said that myself. Twice. In response to you saying they can’t do it. I haven’t once argued that they have done it, only that you were mistaken in saying they couldn’t. Your response to that was to get bad-tempered. Calm down & start reacting politely, & you’ll get calm & polite replies.

BTW, do you now accept that Galileo Avionica (formerly FIAR) can integrate AIM-120 with their radars?

Not really. Not until I see a plane with a FIAR radar actually have an AIM-120, and not until they would officially admit so even in their marketing brochures which they have not by the way.

While this is logical, it’s largely based on one piece of information which is not necessarily relevant – i.e. the performance of the original, late 1960s, F-5E radar (what’s the lock-on range of a Grifo-F or Elta EL/M-2032 in an F-5E?) – and supposition. There’s also an inconsistency here. You insist that the size of the F-5E nose doesn’t allow the fitting of a longer range radar, but are happy to attribute a much longer lock-on range to the much smaller radar of the AMRAAM.

Mainly because the AMRAAM seeker only operates in a single mode, using Continious Wave Illumination not pulse doppler, and the seeker is just homing on mere reflection. The seeker itself does not need range, velocity, heading, it is not doing any tracking purposes. The fighter’s radar does a lot more things than a simple seeker. As a matter of fact, the missile gets its tracking information from the fighter’s radar through a datalink.

As for the supposition part: you may be correct about how F-5E & J-7 operators have thought, but what you say is speculation. You’re saying you don’t think it’s a good idea, therefore it hasn’t happened. It doesn’t follow. All you can really say based on your theoretical analysis is that you think that if it’s been done, it’s unwise. That’s your opinion, & it may be a good one. But you’re representing your opinion as if it’s fact. You’re not citing any real evidence.

Lol. You have not cited any real evidence at all that small radar J-7s and F-5s could justify the use of a BVRAAM.

So are you saying I am ‘opinion’ and you are ‘fact’. I am questioning your facts—more like the sheer lack of it in terms of official channels, documentation and photographs.

And you’ve not responded to what Phantom said about Indian Bisons having R-77. Do you not believe it’s been done, or that it has been done but was a mistake, because the MiG-21 can’t carry a big enough radar to make it worthwhile?

* The Bison upgrade is official, and you can verify it with the IAF and with MIG.

* It is listed in MiG’s website.

* The capabilities, including the ability to fire the R-77 is well documented in the brochures of the Kopyo radar.

* It has been photographed.

By the way, the Bison’s radar is considerably bigger than the F-5E or the J-7B. The Kopyo is around 600mm in diameter.

Your F-5E with AMRAAM does not have any evidence with any of the above four levels of quality proof.

I don’t actually know whether the Singapore F-5E upgrade adds AMRAAM capability (it’d be interesting to know), but you’ve not proved it hasn’t.

For a start, nothing you’ve said is relevant to the question of whether or not Selex (remember, FIAR no longer exists) has access to AMRAAM launch codes. We know it does.

The Turkish F-5 upgrade (F-5A, not E) was a limited, cheap, one meant to permit their use as lead-in fighter trainers for F-16s & extend their airframe lives. Adding AMRAAM capability would be pointless for what they want, & needlessly expensive. So not relevant.

It is relevant because it does show you where the F-5s are really positioned at—as fighter trainers. Adding AMRAAM is irrevelant on a plane that lacks the range to exploit it whether it is in Singapore or Turkey.

Norways F-5s are also F-5A, not E, & the upgrade was also a relatively cheap life-extension. AMRAAM capability not wanted by the customer. So not relevant.

Nonsense. Read the PDF. The SEI upgrade happens to be for F-5E.

There isn’t a single FIAR/Galileo/Selex F-5 upgrade: each one is individually tailored to customer requirements. Ditto with Elbits upgrade. For both, some actual & potential customers have not been cleared for AMRAAM, or were not cleared for it when the contract was bid for, or did not request it.

Turkey is not just a country that has been cleared for AMRAAM, it is cleared right up to the latest version. It is hard to think why a fighter trainer for an AF with AMRAAMs cannot teach its pilots to use such. So what you are saying makes the least sense of all.

The PDF you’ve linked to describes only an upgrade to the existing, very limited, radar. The Singapore upgrade is much more, including, but limited to, a completely new, more capable, radar. Again, I can’t see any relevance. And I don’t see how the PDF describes an “official Northrop Grumman” upgrade, either, though if you tell me the company offering it is linked to NG or has its approval, I’ll take your word for it.

This was linked from Northrop Grumman’s site and yes NG is using this radar to upgrade F-5s.

Why don’t you tell me how much “more” is the Singapore upgrade? Maybe you didn’t get the news—the capability of the radar depends on the antenna size, since modern electronics is always a constant. How can the Singapore upgrade be “much more”, when it is stuck on a small nose that limits the antenna size severely as well as the component packages and the limited cooling.

BTW, I found a Finnmeccanica (owner of 75% of FIARs successor) – document that states that the Grifo can be integrated with AMRAAM. I doubt they’d market it if they knew they couldn’t deliver.

“Can” is not proof of actually doing it. I have been following the armstrade long enough that there is a huge difference between “can” and “done it”.

We know the former FIAR can integrate AMRAAM with Grifo. I don’t know if they’ve actually done it, & particularly, I don’t know if they’ve done it for the F-5E-specific Grifo-F, as used by Singapore. And what about the Grifo-M? Have any BVR missiles been integrated with it? And has anything come of the talk of integrating R-Darter or Derby with any version of Grifo?

Read my last statement again.

Now for Phantom

The F-5’s APQ-159 is capable of detecting a target at ranges up to around 40 miles to 45 miles according to that PDF. Tracking range is a bit shorter, but still in the order of 10 to 15 miles or so. With that upgrade the tracking range goes up to around 20 to 25 miles……plenty of range to utilize a BVR weapon like Derby or AIM-120, and still outside the range of small IR-guided AAM’s.

Maybe it is time for you to read the PDF again.

The really relevant figure in all this is the lock on range. It is the only range there at lets you fire off the missile. As you can see, it is 11.5 nm. There is a big difference between search, track and lock ranges. Only on the last, does your radar can affirmatively obtain sufficient information and resolution to guide a missile with confidence and authority. 11.5nm is rather low; the ARH seeker range alone maybe up from 15 to 25nm. For that matter, on a good day, a good IR seeker like the R-73’s can detect up to 32km.

At these ranges, you are better off with a longer ranged IR missile than an ARH missile. The IR missile can deliver a better kill potential. You are better off with your radar on boresight, point your missile seeker on the target’s direction and let the seeker hunt while the missile is at the rails, launching it already live. You should be able to do this with a Slammer or Adder but it is a waste of money turning the missiles into an overgrown dogfight missile that won’t do the job as good as a real one for much less the price. There is nothing here that Pakistan or China or any other J-7 or F-5 operator would have considered, and ultimately deemed impractical.