Scorpion82Agreed simply awesome , what is the T/W ratio of the F-22 ?
~1.1:1
Scorpion82Why would they have it in the APG-63V1 and then “upgrade” to not having it in the V2/3?
:rolleyes: are you playing the dumb man on purpose? They may have some techniques incorporated in even older radars and it’s likely they adopted them for newer variants as well. The question is whether the types I mentioned a couple of times now offer anything even roughly comparable to the level of the AN/APG-77. What I have received so far is the usual brabbling and trying to avoid directly answering the question.
Scorpion82The Super Hornet uses the AN/ALQ-214 IDECM Electronic Warfare Self-Protection system.
This system includes MAWS capability. This capability is not identified by the use of a separate moniker, ie: MAWS-300, but IDECM certainly does have a MAW function.
How else will they know when to “roll out” the “turd”? Just let her loose, whenever painted with a radar?
🙂
ALQ-214 is just the jammer, not the entire EWS. IDECM includes the AN/ALR-67(V3) RWR, ALQ-214 ECM, ALE-47 chaff/flare dispensers and the ALE-50/55 TRD. AN/AAR-57 IR based MAWS is offered optionally, but I haven’t seen one fitted to any SH up to date. Maybe someone has some photos?
Scorpion82Even APG-63 V1 radars offered LPI. MSIPs (I believe that’s the acronym) had them in Desert Storm in 1991.
That’s ofcourse correct, but it should be clear that I talk about comprehensive techniques and dedicated modes here.
LPI doesn’t mean impossible to detect, just harder to detect, which is why it’s “Low Probability” and not “No Probability”.
That almost sounds like a copy of what I have posted quite some time ago.:D
HOWEVER, while an AESA might be better than a flat plate scanner when it comes to LPI it wouldn’t surprise me if all AESAs using the same software were comperable (providing they’re using the same T/R modules). That is to say all of Northrop Grumman’s might be similar or all of Raytheon’s might be similar but they may be different from each other. So, given that both the APG-77 and APG-81 are both NG products it’s reasonable to assume they’ll have similar levels of LPI. (Same modules, same software-at least the relevant part.)
Here is the clue, do these radars offer the same software? Certainly not and that’s the point and the reason why I’m specifically asking for prove about LPI modes in the AN/APG-63(V2/3)/79/80/82(V1) is that there is not a single indication I’m aware of that any of THESE radars offers such modes and by looking at the display formats they have a striking resemblance to the display formats of the MSA radars of these types.
Scorpion82it will be interesting to compare the f-35/22 manoeverability, i havent done it yet
i havent seen anyone creditable say the phoon isnt 4.5, though i would like aesa included in the 4.5 definition, as its suppose to mean 4 gen platform with 5th gen systems afaik
fwiw i dont give LM a gods right to set definitions, here is a LM link claiming 5gen for both f22/35
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/capabilities/air_power/5th-gen/index.html
if they originally claimed planes had to have SC for 5th gen, it does muddy the water
The problem is that LM originally defined the 5th generation narrowly around the very specific capabilities and technologies of the F-22. At that time there was no other 5th generation US fighter, though even Boeing has repeatedly stated that the F/A-18E/F belongs to the 5th generation. If we just go back to the 4th generation and compare the capabilities and performances of various types you will realise that some attributes usually linked to this generation don’t apply on all types and that not all share the very same things. It is necessary to go as far back as the late 70s/early 80s to realise this. The F-14, MiG-29 or MiG-31 for example lacked FBW systems, western fighters lacked HMS & IRST and often enough datalinks. The F/A-18 was only only type to feature a glass cockpit from the very beginning and the F-14 and MiG-31 were initially the only types woth multitarget engagement capabilities etc. You see there are considerable differences between the technologies and capabilities of various aircraft, that doesn’t change the fact that they all belong to the same generation, in this case the 4th. Nowadays manufacturers and fanboys paint a picture which includes just things in the 5th generation which are featured by their respective aircraft. Take the F-22 where we are at it, why is AESA a must, but not HMD or IRST for example? Why was supercruise a must and now isn’t? You see it’s nonsense and LM is contradicting itself to a certain extend. It’s a pity that so many people jumped on that train blindly consuming what LM told them and don’t take even a second to think about that nonsense.
The 0.5 & + additions to the 4th generation are also just something new to distinguish the much more capable evolved variants from the original ones. This has never been done before and is much to indicate the advances. The reason behind it might be that development of the 5th gen took so long that those 4th gen designs has been kept in production and a lot of technologies originally envisaged for the 5th gen have found their way into the upgraded variants. It’s actually interesting as the difference between some 1st and 2nd generation types is often enough much smaller than the difference between the F-16 blk 1 and blk 60 for example. Those 0.5/+ additions aren’t from Europe either, unlike some people seem to believe. From the european point of view aircraft like the Eurofighter or Rafale belong to the very same generation as the F-22 and if you take a closer look you’ll realise that the technology base of these aircraft is very similar. Ofcourse there are difference, like there were some significant differences between the various 4th generation types.
Scorpion82LM closely defined the must have capabilities of a 5th generation fighter around the F-22 back in the 1990s and the USAF works with that. Main features stealth, supercruise, integrated avionics, NCW, AESA radar and even supermanoeuverability. That’s the problem if people start to define something to close around something very specific. Now where the F-35 is on the table supercruise and supermanoeuverability are suddenly not important anymore to earn the label 5th generation. That’s something I have pointed out for years now, but fanboys ignored it or tried to find lame excuses.
And jackjack to your info AFs etc might not use the term 5th generation with regards to the Typhoon, but they aren’t using 4th generation with regards to the teens/teenskis either.
Scorpion82Conversely, why wouldn’t they include that capability? I’m not saying that other US planes have the same SA capabilities that the sensor fusion on the F-22(and F-35 once in service), but I see no reason to believe that it wouldn’t be one of the features.
The simple reason could be cost or integration with existing systems. Let’s take the AWG-9 for example it offered TWS and multi target engagement capabilities while being older than the APG-63/66 which lacked those capabilities at the time they entered service years later. Just because an older radar features this or that, doesn’t mean newer designs automatically incorporate those capabilities as well or to the same extend. If those radars I mentioned would feature equally comprehensive LPI techniques and dedicated modes, why isn’t it mentioned anywhere? They trumpet out every single advantage and superb capability of these radars, but no word about LPI! The fact that those radars are exported might be another reason, why such capabilities aren’t included or not to the same extend. As said what is possible in theory is one thing, what is a factual capability of a specific system is an entirely different story. So unless people can prove that an AN/APG-63(v3/4)/79 or 80 feature LPI characteristics I’m not going to accept these claims, as I don’t accept a generalised “superior range performance” because it is an AESA. That’s nonsense, but you guys seem to be blinded by all that marketing and are reluctant to understand that not every AESA radar system is the same, as earlier radars with similar technology base weren’t the same.
Scorpion82Again, the ESM systems aren’t just looking at the presence of a signal vs. no signal, and telling the pilot that there’s a signal. There’s a lot of background EM noise that’s always present, and the ESM/RWR have filters which are set to certain thresholds, to prevent constant false alarms. They have digital threat libraries(containing the PRF characteristics of likely threats), so their systems can alert the pilot to specific threats. Because of the way an AESA radar works(lots of small arrays forming a composite aperture, operating on many simultaneous frequencies) vs. a PESA(a single aperture and single signal), the RWR isn’t going to see an identifiable pattern first of all. Secondly, in LPI mode the arrays are operating at a lower power level than in regular operating modes, which further complicates matters of identifying the signal as a threat.
You still don’t grasp the point that not every single US AESA radar offers the same level of performance and capabilities like the AN/APG-77! Prove us that the AN/APG-63V2/V3/79/80/82V1 offer dedicated LPI modes or at least comprehensive LPI techniques. I’m not interested in general claims because the APG-77 or 81 can do so. Prove us that the other designs listed above can do so. Unless you guys are able to prove this I suggest you simply stop claiming such things.
Scorpion82There are no exact figures available, but suffice it to say if a BARs(or Irbis for that matter) equipped Flanker is operating in max power, then their emissions will travel well beyond the claimed 300-400km optimal condition detection ranges. The Super Hornet’s ESM/RWR would allow them to conduct a passive attack, under these conditions without even having to turn on their radars, as an A2A equipped SH won’t be detected at anywhere near those ranges.
If the tables were turned, and the Flankers were not emitting, they may not even be aware that the SH is tracking them, when using LPI modes(or ATFLIR), until AMRAAMs started going active, or if they did something else to betray their positions. That’s why it’s so desirable to remain discreet. I’m pretty sure you’ll never see detection ranges or vulnerabilities of LPI listed anywhere on opensource sites.
If an AESA radar wants to detect a target far out it needs the same netto power output as a PESA radar and will light up enemy ESM systems as well. Until now no one of you guys has ever proven that any of those AESA designs fitted to the teens and SH offers any dedicated LPI modes or even more comprehensive techniques at all. The theoretical potential is one thing, factual capabilities another story. And where is it said that the ALR-67V3 is going to offer passive attack capabilities? It seems you guys are just attributing any single capability of the F-22 to the teens, just because they feature an AESA set now etc. In other words a lot of tall claims, but rarely anything substantial to back up your claims.
Scorpion82Under testing a F-35 “prototype” was flown to the red-line temporary like a F-4 prototype to Mach 2.62. None serious will claim that an ordinary front-line aircraft will reach that speed under regular conditions or will even come close to that.
Not even that speed was achieved on a computer with a non production representative configuration (240-3).
Scorpion82Eurofighter launched a new web magazine dubbed Eurofighter World. The first issue can be found here:
http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/ef_world_1_2010low.pdf
Scorpion82Here is Eurofighter’s view of the events in the UAE. The following text is a copy paste from the new official “Eurofighter World” magazine.
WAR OF WORDS: RAFALE VS TYPHOON
After the Dubai Air Shows on the web
circulated a series of unofficial reports about
exercises held in the UAE with both Rafales
and Typhoons. The fact that these reports
are unofficial could be a sign of our French
competitor frustration in not having signed
the much anticipated contract with UAE or
possibly even to fulfil a basic need to develop
positive stories about the currently unexported
fighter.
The unofficial reports were circulated
using French Air Force Rafale pilots who
used their blogs to say that Rafale won 4 vs
1 engagements with RAF Typhoons during
the exercises in UAE. Propaganda is a science,
but in this specific case the stories
about the Rafale vs Typhoon are unjustified
and an unfair representations of reality because
in the exercise sorties Typhoons and
Rafales worked together on the same team!
There were red Typhoon/Rafale combos
and blue Typhoon/Rafale combos which
took part in the exercise. On the CT (Continuation
Training) sorties both Typhoon and
Rafale squadrons were conducting work-up
sorties for their junior pilots and this is in
fact the subject and source of the unofficial
reports. To be quoting results from this
training does not give a true reflection of
aircraft superiority not to mention the fact
that similar results against the Rafale and
in Typhoons favour also occurred in this
training too, thus dissolving the basis on
which these unofficial reports are based.
Throughout the exercise Typhoon was
always carrying a greater payload than
Rafale, Typhoon always came into the fight
above Rafale and Typhoon take off performance
was always more stunning than
Rafale – all fully as expected.
Scorpion82The Luftwaffe has officially confirmed the centralised Eurofighter operations out of Laage AB where the JG 73 “S” is based. 3 Eurofighters and some personal left Neuburg yesterday heading to Laage. Neuburg will keep 7 aircraft to fulfil the QRA commitment, while Nörvenich will keep its to aircraft for opeval and preparation for future flying operations. The centralised operations out of Laage will last for a year and it is planned that JG 73 might temporarily operate as much as 34 aircraft which is about equal to the total number of aircraft the average Eurofighter unit in the Luftwaffe will receive. The main goal of this effort is to accelerate training of further pilots and increase the number of flying hours for all Eurofighter Luftwaffe pilots as well as improving the training for the ground personal.
Scorpion82It also confirms what has been thought before, that the cockpit is identical to that of the Su-35S.
Scorpion82Maybe the LRIP aircraft will be similar to ISPA Typhoons with limited instrumentation to serve specific purposes and to test things which might not need to much instrumentation, so that the instrumentation can be removed without to much difficulty. I see this move as a step in the right direction, to catch up some time, which was lost due the slow progress of the tests.
Sign In
