Scorpion82Didn’t Dassault demonstrate one of the AESA radars to Singapore using B301 or 302 or a Falcon or an M2K or something?
I’m sure that the Singaporeans had seen the French AESA in action.
Wouldn’t be to sure about that. in 2004 there was no RBE2AA with a european made array and I’m not sure wether they demonstrated the first prototype with the Raeython array. I’ve never seen any suggestion that this radar was actually used. I think the Swiss was the first customer to get that radar demonstrated.
Scorpion82@Scorpion,
PESA generates a signal in a TWT tube. AESA in it’s modules.
So, you can take Mig25’s 600kW radar and put PESA on it and have a zillion kilometers range. AESA’s T/R modules are limted to 3-5W, which (with efficiency of ~50%) makes peak output of 5kW for a 1000 elements array and ~2.5kW of continuous operation power in ideal cooling conditions, while in reality it’s less.
600 kW? Sorry but I doubt so, the N035 Irbis radar provides 20 kW peak power and that’s using two TWTs. I don’t no other radar of that kind providing such a high power output! And modern TRMs can generate much more power, the CAESAR modules for example generated some 10 W per module. And why do AESA systems usually provide a ~50% longer range which is attributed for most systems including Captor-E/CAESAR, RBE2AA and other types as well. I think something is wrong here.
Scorpion82That is your claim but if you look exercise reports from the last two years : tiger meet, red flag and ATLC rafale long range ID capability changed the game. I have never heard anything about this for the Typhoon. But you have perhaps a source ?
see you next day…!
A source about the ID capability of PIRATE? typhoon.starstreak.net writes something about it, I have a document on HD and it was written in the Eurofighter Typhoon special issue from AI/AFM as well and probabley other sources. You might google for STTI (Single Target Track Identification)+Eurofighter Typhoon+PIRATE.
Scorpion82It was nor available nor demonstrated just as Gripen NG new AESA radar until recently. I guess development price was included in the bill. Remember that the older rafale korean campaign was offered with an AESA radar.
I remember Dassault offered the Rafale Mk2 at that time, which was proposed to br available by 2006, featuring RBE2AA, M88-3 and a 3000 l centre line tank.
ESA detection can be detected as well but that would be probably more difficult. Anyway I was thinking of track while scan capabilities or faster scan rates which might be useful not to loose track of several foes. ESA is also inherently more resistant to jamming I think.
I wouldn’t bet on a PESA being so much more LPI or jamming resistent at all. AESA is potentially less prone to jamming as its more powerful, can supress side lobes, selectively cancel out jammers and provides greater beam and frequency flexibility and agility.
About the Rafale and supercruise it is in one of the FoxThree issues, I think 5 or 6 were a MN pilot stated they could climb to 12000 m within 2 min with 4 x MICA and 1 x 1250 l tank and supercruise there. To lazy to look it up right now. No speed has been mentioned however.
@Cola,
PESA longer ranged than AESA? On which base? AESA usually offers greater power output and doesn’t suffer from performance looses between transmitter and antenna.
@Kovy,
With fuel tanks, I don’t even bet on the typhoon as far as speed is concerned.
Well on paper both aircraft look pretty close regarding speed, though 20% more thrust is going to be good for something, it’s not just about thrust/weight, but also thrust/drag ratio and I can’t see the Typhoon to be 20% more draggy.
Scorpion823 things :
-rafale was offered to singapore with AESA so the range difference is irelevant
-ESA radar offer some specific assets vesrus mech radar especially within the range of BVR missile engagement where max range is not needed
-Spectra or any other modern RWR will give the first look against a mech radar.
But the AESA radar wasn’t available or was it demonstrated? And how could have Dassault have delivered it on time? ESA doesn’t mean the emissions can’t be detected either. What about a Typhoon flying silent using DASS and PIRATE and Rafale uses its radar?
IRST can track but not identify. The TV channel of the rafale do this as providing 3D localisation thanks to its laser range finder.
PIRATE isn’t a plain IRST but dual band imaging IRST/FLIR and can do both. The main advantage I see for the OSF is that it is a multisensor suite which can perform multiple tasks simultaneously (tracking multiple targets and tracking and IDing a priority target).
Scorpion82So what does that mean? What exactly will T3A till 2013/14 have? Meteor, Paveway 4, HMSS, TVC and a bit more thrust, possibly CFTs? What about targeting pods and other a2g weapons?
P1E for T2 will add PW IV, GBU-48, Litening TGP (full integration) and the HMSS will be delivered later this year and can be used with all block 5 aircraft and higher. T3A isn’t defined now. Remains yet to be seen, a package is hopefully soon agreed on.
Scorpion82Kovy, tmor and so on have hints but prefer to keep them since it’s the typical source that can be sound as biased.
It seems that Mr Lake disagree with that way of thinking :rolleyes:
Unfortunately they told it the wrong guys (don’t want to give names, but you know who) who spreaded it out in various forums. Though some of them are claiming to have contacts themself, but come up with the very same stuff…
Scorpion82Not really it has been posted before, dunno if here, but at least over at starstreak.net.
Scorpion82Well some posters talked to several pilots, for instance at le Bourget. You surely remember when Arthuro (I think) reported what benco said to him. But you have to admit that those talks are not as credible than some official comment by the C/O of 1/7 Provence.
Nic
There are two sides of the story. People cleared to talk to the public in a press conference will usually present you with pre-made statements, while people you unofficially talk to off track might be willed to tell you more. For me the thumb rule is hear as many sides and sources as possible and extract the info and puzzle it together if possible. Yet people might lying or simply exeggerate with their statements, not every pilot is aware of everything. let alone an upper expert. I personally appreciated the hints from Benco as reported by Arthuro.
Scorpion82I have a problem mainly with Jacko and all his “statements” made up out of thin air.
Remember, superior MMI, underpowered planes etc etc ?Say who ?
So the best plane got kick among the first in that competition ? No, do you really believe it ?
Anyway, french pilots have a total different story to say, but since they have a confidentiel agreement can’t talk officially.
Thanks god Mr Lake found lots of unscrupulous witnesses 🙂
But other pilots who can’t talk officially can’t be taken into account? Why don’t you give us hints about what the french said? As you guys gave hints about the Italian/French DACT between Rafales and Typhoons in 2007 etc.?
Scorpion82RCS testing has been completed, flight test are now planned and Boeing hopes to receive orders from existing customers.
Scorpion82I have my doubts that you can jam every freq in the APG-77’s range, on a narrow band, simultaneously though. You’d need a lot of emitters to cover that amount of bandwidth.
And who spoke about the APG-77 explicitely here? Do you know the exact working frequency of any radar and with what rate they change…?
Scorpion82Latest update: PAK-FA commences high-speed taxi trials (?) coms via radio scanners.
QuadroFX, has that 710/117 combo flown yet?
At least with 117S, it actually tested these engines since around 2004 if I recall correctly. I wouldn’t be to sure wether the aircraft is really used as a testbed for the 117.
Scorpion82So T-10M-10 is an ex-Su-27M? It has canards it seems.
Does anyone know the story with this fighter? Is it one of the 11 Su-35s that the RuAF accepted but never put into service?
EDIT: I just realized the bort number is 710. That’s one before the 711 that used to be the Su-37 until it crashed. So this is the ex-Su-35 then ex-Su-37 then ex-Su-35 again and now T-10M-10 engine testbed. Is that correct?
T-10M is Sukhois internal designation for the Su-27M, Su-35 was the export designation added in 1992.
Knaapo built 6 prototypes T-10M-1 to 6 (701 – 706) and 6 pre-production aircraft T-10M-7 to 12 (707 – 712) and another 3 production aircraft (86 – 88). The T-10M-10 is the 4th pre-production aircraft and was specifically used for testing the article 117S engines. T-10M-8 was used to test the KSU-35 integrated control system. Both aircraft therefore complemented the flight test and development program of the new Su-35S (T-10BM). The Su-37 demonstrator was the 5th pre-production example T-10M-11 (711) and crashed in december 2002.
Scorpion82i was attempting a joke, where the rwr is near the canards and the jammer is in tail
did i mention that spectra has aesa antennas ?
Locations of the various SPECTRA components can be found in #409 2 pages ago. Why don’t you read the information/material provided? Instead you ask questions for which you could have known the answer by just reading a bit.
Sign In
