crobatoWhen in doubt, always go back to the fundamentals and the exaggerated examples. How come early warning radars are placed on big aircrafts instead of fighter aircrafts? Why do smaller upgraded fighters like MiG-21 and F-5 still have inferior radar than F-15 or Su-30? Storage size, power requirements, technology level etc, all make larger aircraft have the inherent advantage when it comes to airborne radar. There are always some exceptions, but in general larger aircrafts tend to have better radar for good reasons.
Of course bigger planes means bigger array and bigger power emitted, which means bigger gain, not to mention better angular resolution on top of the better detection ranges.
But is it better overall? Is the radar on the F-15 really better than the F-16 or the F-18? Is the radar on the Su-27 better than that of the Mirage 2000-5? Is the radar on the F-14 or Su-27 better than the Typhoon because of their size?
There is something called modernity and that surely counts. There are so many features that you can put in any radar that is beyond sheer array size or the power of the klystron. Certainly not saying that the radar on the J-7G is better than the MKK’s. There is a line when things are too small. But I don’t personally think that the radar on the MKK is better than that of the Block 20 or Dash-5, despite the superior range. Or for that matter, the J-10’s. Of course there are many other qualities.
But what I’m sure is that for a small plane, the radar on the FC-1 is not small. This is not an APG-67 sized radar (by the way, the APG-67 was once considered as a potential J-7 upgrade). At 600mm, the radar is in the same size as that used by the MiG-21 Bison and the F-16s. In that sense, the Ching Kuo designed itself into a corner, if you compare both planes, it does look like the Thunder’s is bigger. Now there is still a question of modernity in the new Ching Kuo variant’s radar…
On the Typhoon, the marketing talk is quite impressive. I for one have not argued that having AESA is automatically better than MSA. What you put on the backend is what truly counts. Not to mention that MSA still has a few tricks up its sleeve, and that is why modernizing the backend really REALLY counts if you want to pull those extra tricks (hence my reply to Sens). Some of these tricks are not going be done by putting a few extra boards into the system.
Of course the bigger plane will have the superior outfit once the same level of technology is applied. The RDY may be better than the N001E on the Su-27, but against BARS or IRBIS, not. However, the larger planes must maintain that technology chase.
As for the Typhoon, marketing speak aside, the plane is not any bigger, nor the nose any bigger than that of the Su-27 or F-15. The size advantage over the F-16 or Mirage 2000 isn’t what I call big either. Kudos for them having a RISC architecture for processing, having a far more powerful klystron and a fast servo to drive the array around. But then you also have to remember that the radars on the F-16 and Mirage 2000-5 are a bit getting long on the tooth either, designed earlier even than the CASTOR.
crobatoHere your analogy goes too far. In military flying it is the certification for every part of new technolog, which is most cost and time consuming. I remember about the PC-parts for the space-shuttle the NASA bought for some years, when out of production for some time. Most personal computers do outperform those carried by fighters with ease. The performance by a system is not given by every part, but that which is the bottle-neck part. Even when you replace that, you will hit the next bottle-neck part by doing so. “Surplus” power before or behind a bottle-neck is a waste of money.
I agree with you that the radar-system of a Block 60 F-16 has the potential for twice that given for a Block 50 in general. But without the related software it is worth nothing really. Here the software and the processing power demands of every item are the limits. The F-35, thanks to later freeze of design will offer several times the processing power compared to the F-22 f.e..
Despite that none will claim the F-35 will field a superior radar-system compared to the F-22 in practise. Theoretical yes, but when it comes to operational use, it is not so. The F-35 hit some “unknown” bottle-neck before at first. If the USAF will have the time and money to utilize all that “surplus” technical capabilities is questionable. A fighter has to fight now and not in an unknown distant future. Even the F-22 does not have its final software Block fielded to make full use of all hard-ware capabilities available.
To be honest with you Sens, I’m not really sure that the F-22’s radar and avionics systems are better than the F-35’s. Of course no one will “claim” that the radar on the F-35 will be better than the F-22, everyone is still trying to sell the F-22 and no one will admit that the cheaper alternative might actually have something better, notwithstanding that the man to machine interface of the F-35 is already clearly better.
Frankly, the APG-68V5 used in the Block 50 is getting really old. Despite updates like modular computers and color CRTs, its hard to say that its better even compared to the APG-68V7-9 used in the Block 52+. It was disappointing for many that the V10 upgrade was cancelled, as the planes certainly need it. To say that 68V5 is better than APG-78 is truly off the roof, not withstanding the AESA to the frequency agility fo the new radar.
crobatoFind out more about traffic analysis. Simply using same frequency and waveforms won’t cut it. By the way, you might end up jamming yourself.
That is why you have different channels. Otherwise a squadron of the same aircraft would be jamming themselves.
As I said before, a null can be steered onto the ASH to deny it any guidance. Also, a pure ARH is useless against aircraft. Switching off the emitter only near the terminal stage of the missile and it will just go by merrily on its way.
Exactly how do you know if the missile is in terminal stage or not? Steering something into a missile means detecting and tracking something with an RCS smaller than 0.5m with a speed like Mach 3. (Mach 6 for the 48N6E2). Must be one great sense of Superman timing to click on and off at the exact point against a Mach 6 missile.
The asset can be quite far away and remain in LOS. What makes you think LOS means being in SAM range?
Because the signal does not necessarily travel that far. Weak signals, EMCON on the part of the SAMs, terrain obstacles like mountains and buildings, ECM rich emission environment. Oh and besides that, surveillance assets always have to work not by the direct beam of the emission, but almost always on the sidelob emissions. In other words, they work with scraps.
Rivet Joints and Compass Calls will ALWAYS be brought in in a major war. These are required assets against any networked system.
You didn’t exactly answer me how far you have to do this.
Wow, you must think blinking and decoys make for an invincible air defense system. As I said… traffic analysis.
You don’t know what blinking is, do you?
The Buk would be ineffective against the F-22. Look at the max altitude of the missile. 85,000 ft. With the F-22’s operating altitude above 60,000 ft, that means that the range of the Buk system against the F-22 at that altitude would be minimal, even with the optimal engagement scenario of the F-22 coming head on to the Buk.
Lol. The higher the plane is, the less maneuverable and the less power it has. At a certain altitude, the F-22 is already a flying brick. And it isn’t just the Buk. Even old missiles like Guidelines have intercepted as high as 90,000ft.
You don’t seem to understand the limitation of SAR. SAR doesn’t identity the target. The AT3 network does.
SAR gives a high fidelity resolution of the target. EMCON or not, and even with zero emission, you will simply see what is decoy, what are the trailers, what are the radars, pin point them, pass it through the data link, and have another loitering aircraft come to bomb them. SEAD/DEAD operation remains a timed response. The simpler, the faster.
Technology will make it even harder on the long run, because you will inevitably be dealing with LPI and ultralow to no sidelob emissions,. so trying to identify targets alone by their signals is ultimately a dead end as a technology route.
crobatoI highly doubt MICA has the same ballistic range as R-77 or AIM-120.
Perhaps I misunderstand the missile technology concepts, but I am not sure what you are trying to say with ARH seeker range. So you are saying that newer ARH seekers like 9B-1103M with longer range is actually worse than the older seeker with short range? I do not get that at all. ARH seeker technology level has not reached the level where you have to worry about a fighter tries to launch an AAM with ARH turned on 100km away and therefore warned the enemy fighter too soon. If you really want the longer range ARH seeker to turn on at a shorter distance with less warning, just set a closer intercept point to enemy fighter with your INS and ARH will turn on later, so why is that a handicap? It’s the same principle, longer range could be used at either longer or shorter range, but shorter range could only be used at shorter range.
But we always do want a stronger seeker, not because of the range it produces, but range is an indication of the way the seeker would detect, lock and track low RCS targets. Of course we do not want to warn the target by going off early, hence the importance of the INS and the midphase guidance.
Also, this can never be said enough: Range is by no means the only standard to measure AAM effectiveness.
Sheer “I can touch you Point A to B” distance isn’t really that important. What is important is how long and fast the missile can give chase. A missile that can sustain the chase longer will give you that advantage.
Does it matter if I fire the R-73 or R-27ET on the same target 10km away? Same seeker on both missiles, yes. R-73 is more maneuverable yes. But the R-27ET will sustain the chase longer. The main thing that stops a missile from killing is running out of fuel.
I agree PLA does not need to prove the PL-12 performance to the world by any international exercises. But as outside observers, that means we do not have verification or secondary indicator that would support estimations that it is a superior weapon. This is simply a matter of practicality: there isn’t enough official data on PL-12, PLAAF hasn’t had any BVR air combats, and there weren’t any exercises. Not much to go on there.
There is some official data on the PL-12, at least on the SD-10. Among them, a 70km range (official) and a 38G maneuverbility limit, which is actually higher than a PL-9 (35G).
PLAAF has practiced a lot of BVR combat among themselves, frequently in exercises. Furthermore, the PL-12 has appeared in training and evaluation units since mid 2003. That’s quite a while already.
Surely target speed, engagement conditions all affect the real detection range. However I do not think it is ever in dispute that CAPTOR is a much better radar. For starter there is some context, namely the RCS of the target (a limited context but good for rough comparison nevertheless). The processor speed, power, and other specs of CAPTOR are all documented to be superior than other traditional radars.
But what makes it superior? Is it because the total output is twice more than the APG-65?
Or is it because it is PowerPC processors, which the Ericsson P02 unit on the Gripen also boasts, and so does the Nintendo Gamecube. The software? The internal diagrams?
Other than the sheer power of its klystron, the other qualities, processors, software, and hardware design, are indepedent of the plane’s size.
Of course we could say that is only manufacturer’s propaganda. But Eurofighter and Rafale are set to replace the older EU aircrafts. If people do not think RBE-2 is inferior or merely the equal of smaller RDY, why should the peer CAPTOR radar be that much inferior when CAPTOR is said to have greater detection range/more capable, and there are no evidence to show otherwise?
See this link for more info:
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.htmlI would be extremely surprised if a low cost, lightweight fighter like FC-1 would have radar in the same league as Eurofighter.
I don’t think RBE-2 is bigger than the RDY.
Funny you brought up that page too, since I was looking at that same page yesterday, since there is not that many aircraft around the world that has optical MAWS. Yet the FC-1 is one of them. That’s a gold gilded item that one expects on a plane like the Typhoon, and not on the FC-1. And yet this cheap light fighter also has this, which is a great surprise to me when I first saw this.
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/defences.html
crobatoSearch radars are set up to scan 90 degree quadrants,
Usually. Not necessarily.
target tracking/illumination radars are for midcourse/terminal guidance. Each operates at a distinct set of frequencies and are not easily confused for other systems.
Most of the Russian SAM systems operate the same general way, including Buk. All work on the same general frequency range (I/S band). There is nothing here about setting up decoys that would duplicate the same frequency and wave form.
HARM has gone through some serious upgrades in the last 10 years. Before a HARM or other SEAD weapon is launched, SIGINT will geolocate the emitter and a SAR/ISAR picture will be painted to comfirm the target.
That’s a chicken vs. egg situation. What comes first the chicken or the egg? SAR (ISAR does not work here) requires direct line of sight and a constant flight path (no it won’t work if the aircraft is wildly maneuvering to avoid SAMs). For that matter, geolocation using SIGINT requires LOS. You have to bring another asset, be it a satellite in LE orbit (has some real time constraints); recon UCAVs, or have the F-22 do a dash scanning. On the other hand, the last two may still be subjected to some SAM attack.
The most effective jamming techniques are not apparent to the system being jammed. Thus there is nothing to trigger a HOJ response.
HOJ only works when the jamming against the missile is successful. And for that to happen, the jammer has to match the frequency and waveform of the seeker’s emitter, as the seeker will ignore everything else. If HOJ is not triggered, then the missile is still working. Note: what you use to jam a radar set on the ground, will not work on the missile and vice versa. Likewise, what you use to jam a volume search radar isn’t the same as what you can use on a fire control radar, and again the last can be specific to what kind of guidance is involved.
That network of stuff is also S300/400 Achilles heel. If it emits, it will be geolocated and will receive the attention of a salvo of PGMs.
As long as it has to be geolocated by signal, it would still mean bringing SIGINT assets within LOS of the emitter. You have to be able to deploy your PGMs fast enough before the whole convoy shuts down and move again.
That’s what makes F-22 the ideal SEAD asset. It does all its stuff from 60K+ feet and can ignore IR SAMS like other trashfire. Once the radar emitters are rolled up, there isn’t much left that can effectively cue an IR SAM.
Did I say IR seeking SAMs? I said cued. A large SAM, the size of a Buk or Guideline, that is command guided by an IRST, for example the unit used on SA-3s.
Decoys can and will be identified through traffic analysis. For example – decoys won’t be sending out radar data to other units. That’s already one discriminator. Determining this is the job of the Rivet Joint and Compass Call.
Ah yes, so I have to bring in, relatively slow moving aircraft within LOS of various emitters, especially if the emitters are not long range.
If something is sending out radar data to another unit, chances are the link is weak, which does not give much distance, easily obscured through signal traffic and requires direct LOS with the receiver. True you may find that signal, but how long will it take?
Decoys can use the same frequency and waveforms as the SAM supporting assets, all of whom the channels are field selectable, and can be changed.
Assets like Rivet Joint and Compass Call will not be placed within SAM engagement zones.
Which is not going to help you find the SAM sites amidst decoys.
HOJ? Shutting down the jamming for a very short period would be enough.
That would still keep the missile flying on the same path.
Unlike a ground based radar it is moving. Fast.
Except when you shut down the jamming, the missile will start seeking and locking again. Immedietely.
As said before, HARM can already be made to attack targets within a specified geographic zone. The coming-soon AARGM will have an onboard MMW radar, permitting attacks even against radars which have shut down.
And what if the radars blink?
Those extremely long ranged missiles are not and cannot be fielded in large quentities.
There are like 24 to 48 of them in a battery.
ndeed, technology is progressing. HARMs are already decreasing in importance in the DEAD role, simply because the USAF’s network is rapidly getting to the point where it is capable of localising signal emitting targets with enough fidelity to send a gps guided bomb to it without the need for a specialised ARM like HARM. Look up AT3 and the latest GRAND algorithm BAe came up with.
Would have been simpler if you just come in, SAR the entire suspected area, then bomb all identified targets. If you want to do it once, do it simple fast and right.
crobatoThat’s just from another rumour thread on Chinese forum. Apparently, this thing was on one of the experiment ships. Although, I haven’t seen it from any of the photos I’ve seen. Frankly, they already have something that looks like Sampson that is actually paired up with HH-16 and the FCRs. So imo, just rubbish.
Maybe an air search radar not unlike this.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/dezeven6.html
crobatoOriginally Posted by YourFather
Oh and the S-300/S-400 is going to be happily radiating with no HARMs bearing down them? No jamming to suppress them? No network attacks to make them see targets that are not there, and not see targets that are there?
HARMs are no guarantee that it will shut down a ground network.
* There are always decoys.
* Complicating the decoy situation, is that there will be other AD radars for involved, as this is a layered defense. Your HARM can end up pointed at a Tunguska rather than the S-300 unit.
* The S-300 works with at least two to three units. Chances are your HARM is likely to, asssuming it isn’t attracted by the decoys or the other radars in the network, it may find itself drawn to the volume search radar. Destroying this radar does not destroy the fire control radar, which would already be locked against the incoming aircraft.
* When you bring your own network in, you remove the stealth advantage, since all these other assets have become vulnerable. ECM assets will get HOJ’ed at.
* It gets really complicated even more if bistatic and multistatic radars are involved.
* There are tactics that can be used against HARMs. I’m not talking about shutting down the radar. HARMs can still go after a target by sheer INS. Tactics like blinking can be used by a ground network to literally confuse a HARM, causing the HARM to jink multiple times and run out of fuel. There are also other stuff like frequency hopping. You don’t need AESA to do that.
* The S-300/400 missiles, as well as its radar network, has a range exceeding far greater than any current ARM. Chances are, they would have a fair first shot advantage.
* If that is not the problem, layered defenses mean shorter range SAMs, especially like the ones that can be cued by thermal/optical devices, may also be set frontward, and the attacking aircraft may end up flying over them without knowing they’re there.
* Technological advances, such as those towards reducing sidelob emissions, can make it even harder for the HARM to detect something. It does not necessarily have to be AESA. The technology has reached to a point that even MSAs can produce very low sidelob emissions. Another development, totally independent of AESA, and can be used in any radar design, is pulse compression, which lets you create an LPI signal or pulse.
crobatoTwo things have to be kept in mind. Most radars are modular built. And more than the technology virtues are the related software of importance. The software gives the performances from a radar installation at first. A clue is filter performances. An UAE Block 60 is outperformed easily by an USAF Block 50 F-16 for example, despite it its higher technology radar-system.
That’s not really true actually. Even when radars are modular built, the newer ones enjoy newer components, faster buses, and even has more future proofing. Analogy. S-100 C/PM, Apple II and IBM PC computers are also modular. Will they still stand up to today’s PCs? Not even close. I don’t think a Block 50’s radar will come close to performing like the Block 60 does. That does not mean the US will know how to block or jam one of its own made aircraft if used in a rogue manner.
crobatoNothing wrong with 2 decades old manufacturing. As explained before you cannot make significant additions of composite on aircraft that is not designed from the ground up for it. Metal still works very well for long term use, since their manner of degradation is much more predictable than composites. If you incur battle damage, all you need is to weld it shut rather than replacing the entire section.
crobatoThat APG-65 unit has been around for a while. But yes, it should also be one of the archetypes for today’s modern digital planar radar designs.
Still wondering if the radar on the Ching Kuo C/D represents even an overhauled one. But so far the open literature suggests a modification rather than an overhaul which otherwise would have been mentioned specifically.
The way APG/APQs are designated really seem confusing and may reflect some byzantine procurement procedure.
For example, the APG-70, with so many changes in the internal design using digital gate arrays, should represent an entirely new design from the APG-63.
But the APG-63V1 is said to be a complete electronics overhaul, which by definition means I cannot use outdated obsolete electronics parts anymore, which means I have to use brand new ones, which means if build a set using all new electronics, the result is an overall new set. Despite the designation number, APG-63V1 is considered superior to APG-70 and is billed as an replacement upgrade. While the Strike Eagle use the APG-70, the Slam Eagles use the APG-63V1. With budgetary considerations, does not look like a lot of Eagles around the world are updated with -63V1.
APG-73 is a radar seperate from the APG-65, though used also in the Hornets. The -73 uses components from the -70.
Now where does the APG-66V1 aka the MLU come in? It seems analogous to the -63V1 as both represents complete overhauls of the radar, and by operative definition, pretty much from the ground up. I won’t be surprised if APG-66V1 is more advanced than the APG-68V3 to 5. BTW, the majority of the USAF F-16s appear pretty much stuck to V5, despite upgrades. Never heard of V6, but V7 to V9 are only seen in the export Block 52+ models.
Here is another question mark in my head. The T-50 radar is billed as APG-67V4, which is the same lineage as the F-20 and Ching Kuo radar. But V4? What happened to V1-3? What are the changes put on this?
crobatoIn the J-10, composites are only used in the main wing surface, tail, and canards. The aircraft is mainly aluminum, aluminum lithium and titanium. Its pretty common to have aircraft that use composites on tails and wings. Some may the MiG-29 and the Su-27 are metal aircraft but they do use composites on the tail and wings.
crobatoI agree longer seeker range does not matter if there isn’t enough corresponding kinetic energy, 30 km seeker with 5 km kinetic range is dumb. However, I was pointing out the opposite effect when comparing missiles: Shorter seeker range would effectively limits the overall engagement envelop, even if the rocket could offer long ballistic kinetic energy. Suppose you have a missile with 7 km ARH and 30 km ballistic range, and another missile with 15 km ARH better seeker and 25 km ballistic range, is the first missile really that much better than the second one (if it’s considered better in the first place)?
One of the rationales for the R-27T/TE development was the R-73 seeker had a longer range than the kinematic performance of the missile frame. Hence the idea of putting the IR seeker on an BVRAAM frame.
Let me first tell you that an ARH seeker with a longer range is not necessarily better. Yes, you can fire and forget earlier but all it does is warn your target earlier.
I also do not believe French technology is better than U.S. But if we are talking about the likes of newcomer PL-12, TC-2, and R-Darter etc. , French technological level and experience must also be considered.
Nonetheless, if MICA is supposed to have the same range as AMRAAM, PL-12, TC-2 and R-77, the propellant technology would have to be out of this world, so much it would also make French tank shells to French IR missiles to be way superior over anyone else in this world.
Its either that or you would have to accept that MICA would have to fly slower to get the same range, but this affects the effectivity of the missile. So that is not acceptable either.
Can’t say if newcomer is that behind, as newcomer is likely to get the propellant tech from outside sources.
Cope India is an unique situation that is different from NATO and EU exercise. Unlike the India-U.S. military relationship which is at its infant stage and still lacks common vision and trust, some of the allied nations are much more willing to share information. Not to mention there are some dual users, such as Greece with both F-16C/D and Mirage 2000. There is no reason for Greece to fake simulation in favor of French aircraft technology, when they conduct exercises themselves.
Only for themselves, not with anyone else.
And what makes you think that the exercises are mere exercises of BVRAAM range? They would of course entail a whole range of situations, many of them are in WVR and doing BFM. The MICA is probably every bit as good or better than the other missiles once you’re in range.
Simulations are still simulations. its not the same thing when you have a live round hot on your tail. The fact that a US submarine got caught red handed by the ROCN trying to pick up a used MICA round tell you that the French have also been hiding its performance to other NATO nations and the US even during exercises.
Furthermore, if you think exercises do not always tell the whole story (which I agree), what does that say about the even more unproven PL-12 which does not have International exercises records at all?
The US will certainly not faithfully simulate AMRAAM in an exercise with a country that does not have the same missile. Certainly the Indians didn’t as well for their R-77s and R-27s. The Chinese will likely do the same. International exercises tell you zilch.
At least the Chinese do have the R-77 to compare directly with. For the rest, that is up to their espionage and intelligence efforts, and one cannot discount that they may already have acquired the information. The Chinese do not need to prove the performance of the PL-12 to the world, except for the potential customer. For their purpose, they only need to know among themselves.
Comparison of CAPTOR with older radar is not easy to find, but it is accessible with some research. I remember the figures I saw has shown that with the same target RCS, the non-AESA version of CAPTOR still have about twice detection range of RDY-2 or APG-68(V)9. Whatever Pakistan wants to stick into JF-17 (short of AESA one), it will not even be as good as non-AESA version of APG-63 in raw range performance. So why should we compare the JF-17 radar selections to CAPTOR? Remember that ultimately JF-17 and IDF are both lightweight fighters, they will not have enough space for larger radar sets. You emphasized the weight factor in the missile relation discussion, don’t forget this also applies to fighter and radar size.
Quoting detection range is useless without some context. FYI, the quoted figures for the FC-1 is 125km, which is not bad for an array of this size. But you don’t know the parameters of the quote. What is the RCS of the target in question. Is it at high or low? Head on or pursuit? As a note, the Russians don’t quote detection ranges, they quote tracking or engagement ranges, which are often shorter.
So, is it any meaningful if Radar A quotes detection range of 150km while Radar B quotes engagement range of 100km?
As a matter of fact, the array sizes of the Rafale and the Typhoon are both aren’t that big either. Certainly not Su-27 or F-15 sized. The nose of the Typhoon is limited due to its length, from firewall to cockpit, which it has to share with the canard mechanisms. I was surprised that the radome on the Rafale proved quite small because the nose structure has to be V shaped for the intakes.
The fact that Russia offered the Kopyo-F to FC-1 gives us a relative size of the array—around 600mm (J-10 is 700mm because Russia’s offer of the Zhuk for it). This puts the radar on the FC-1 to be around the APG-66/68 size class. The Grifo S7 being offered to the FC-1 is said to be derived from the Grifo S2000 being marketed as an APG-66 replacement.
APG-67 is even smaller than APG-66, since it was marketed for the Tigershark, ergo, F-5E airframe. Although when it did came out for the Tigershark, the APG-67 was superior to the APG-66 in both detection and engagement range as well as support for Sparrow, which means its got STT. The APG-66 then was nothing more than a dogfight radar, and the engagement range was under 65km. So it really wasn’t that much better than the Fiar Grifos bieng installed on the F-7PG. Compared to the APG-66, the APG-68 was superior in range (at least 80km engagement), and also over the smaller APG-67. I would regard APG-68 as the model for the archetype modern fighter radar which everyone else seemed to copy feature to feature, range to range, mode to mode. Because it’s everyone’s target, everyone trying to best it by design and by specs, the APG-68 may no longer the best.
crobatoAIM-7 is heavier than AIM-120, but AIM-7 does not have longer range. The comparison between PL-8 and MICA may not be appropriate or accurate.
Yes but AIM-7 and AIM-120 is not on the same technology level.
Comparison between PL-8 and MICA is not appropriate because PL-8 has a higher top speed than most AAMs (that’s the philosophy of the Python series) and sacrifices range for that. This means the propellant burns faster, but the increased speed means a higher chance of kill.
What is appropriate is the comparing MICA with AMRAAM (115kg vs. 150kg) or with R-77 (170kg).
TC-2 has the highest weight 200kg. PL-12 is 180kg. But PL-12 is known to use dual pulse motor, something the Israelis may have passed to the Chinese via the Python or the Italians through the Aspide. I don’t think R-77 has dual mode, because the R-77M is supposed to have this.
When you have a specfiic limited quantity for propellant, you can get more range at the expense of speed (slower burning) or less range for more speed (faster burning). The drawback of losing speed is that your PK goes down as well. Having only 115kg puts you with a lot of tradeoffs. If you want to put more propellant, you may sacrifice seeker size, which decreases your seeker range (smaller array, less battery for output) or smaller warhead, which decreases your proximity blast range.
Of course there is a correlation between weight and range – the shorter range IR missile are generally lighter for good reasons. Motor efficiency could only take you up to a point, only a heavier and larger missile will have the ultimate capacity for the reach. However, there is a fine balance and trade-off that still matters. The actual engagement envelope does not only depend on rocket motor, but also on seeker sensitivity and range. France is good in both motor and seeker technology, so the gap may not be as great as it appears to be when only considering the weight (assuming there is a significant gap in the first place).
Does not change the kinematic range no matter what the seeker range is.
Contending that France is good (by brand name alone) is not an argument. I would certainly doubt that France has better technology on propellant over Russia or the US.
I doubt MICA has any significant technological advantages over AIM-120, but when compare to products of the less experienced industry such as PL-12 or TC-2, I would not be so quick to write it off. We only have to look at NATO and EU exercise experiences to see that Mirage 2000 with MICA does perform well even against peers such as F-16.
Again, exercises tell zilch about missile performance because quite so often missiles in exercises are nothing more than artificially simulated, and the simulation may not correpond to the actual missile for classification reasons. A good example is in Cope India where simulated missiles are limited to 30km.
This is not to say, there is a rationale for making the missile as small and light as possible. You can put more of them so you can engage more targets.
Don’t forget RDY also was developed in the 1980s. From my memory, neither Grifo S2000 nor RC-400 is at the same performance level as RDY-2. I don’t
I’m not sure about that. RDY is getting old.
know much about Castor, isn’t that more of the EW/Battle Management system instead of fighter radar? If you meant CAPTOR the Eurofighter radar, well it should not be compared to other radars in the first place, it is on a different level. Neither FC-1 nor IDF will equip anything similar close to that.
And in what level is that different? Would you be more specific? Unlike so many others in this board and others, I don’t believe in idols and brand names. It always comes down to showing me the beef, not the name.
crobatoIs JF-17 even confirmed to use 1773? Some of the advertising on JF-17 has yet to materialize.
I have not seen this one yet.
From physics standpoint, higher mass equals higher momentum. However there are also the engineering practical elements like efficiency that also affects the outcome. Besides, the overall capability assessment should not be limited to range alone. Everyone knows seeker accuracy, ECM, and aircraft integration are equally important – perhaps much more so. France is not only one of the aviation industry leaders, specifically its missile and rocket technologies have proven records in both real combats and multi-national exercises. The cost-effectiveness has always been the French Achilles’ heel because of the high unit prices, but the qualities are usually not in doubt.
It does not change the fact that the missile is only 115kg while the AMRAAM to the TC-2 ranges from 150 to 200kg. So you have a sweet range defining what a true medium BVRAAM should be.
When you only have a 115kg that does not mean you truly have an effective long or medium range. Your flight time is no better than a PL-8, which weighs about equally. It means the missile is very maneuverable yes like what you would expect with a dogfight missile.
Certainly nothing is unbeatable, and brand name alone doesn’t guarantee success. But the brand names are brand names for good reasons – not so much as brand names must have great qualities, but it is because of great qualities that the brand name exists in the first place. The user experience speaks volumes, when assessing French weapons.
Does not change the fact that the missile is only a 115kg, and unless you have some kind of generational leap in propellant technology over both the US, Russia and the rest of Europe, I really really don’t think the MICA has the range and end game performance of a missile with more propellant.
Beware of the designation game (i.e. Su-27 and Su-37 are both “Flanker”). AN/APG-68 were designed in the eighties and was introduced in service with F-16 Block 25, yet I doubt any one would consider the latest AN/APG-68(V)10 as inferior junk among the non-AESA traditional airborne radars.
Its hard to say what goes inside the APG-68v10 and whether how extensive the internal changes are. But it’s hard to say if the APG-68 v9/10 is any better than Grifo S2000, the latest ELTA M2032, Thales RC-400 or RDY-2, or the Castor. Some of the slotted arrays are also aging designs now, being face lifted, adding new external components around an old infrastructure.
There is nothing to indicate that the radar on the Chingkuo C/D represents a significant change or upgrade. All it appears was to unlock some capability that already exists in the current set. The cost to benefit ratio to significantly overhauling the computer architecture, rewriting and debugging literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of lines of code, only to slap an old school mechanical array on top of it, is simply not there.
crobatoVietnamese Su-30MK2 8534. In hanger, in runaway, in air, and Kh-29T being loaded upon for exercise.
Sign In
