Scorpion82I’d be surprised if it was not using AB too. In any case, the original Mig-29 IRST itself was capable of 20km detection for non AB targets; for afterburning targets, the range was “several times” that figure. I’d imagine that the OLS on the 35 would similarly have a detection range several times the one quoted for non AB targets (45km?). Even the OLS 30 on the now older su-30 is about 90km for AB targets iirc.
USS.
Don’t forget about the aspect angles. The problem is that russian IRSTs are midwave single band sensors optimised for large heat sources, such as engine exhausts. The PIRATE and the OSF for that matter are both dualband sensors working with mid and long wavelength. The later one is optimised to detect heat like that on the aiframe produced by friction. Dualband sensors are also going to improve adverse weather performance. PIRATE was described as “F-16 radar like performance” which would be the average and comply with ~80 km range quote. The 150 km figure is certainly a “in best conditions” range.
Scorpion82In otherwords, bar numbers (lesser), capability/airframe wise, the AF does not lose anything by cancelling a T3B?
Well nothing is for sure, but that’s my take on it. It doesn’t make sense to substantially further develope the type for T3B if the customers, spare Spain have no interest in taking these aircraft in the first place.
Also, will all airframes in each AF be brought up to a common standard, avionics wise?
At the moment it is planned to bring up all T1 aircraft to block 5 standard as part of the R2 programme. The T3A contract signed on 31 july includes 2.5 bln € to deal with obslences on T1 and T2 aircraft, what is included is unknown. I could imagine that T1 aircraft are partitially upgraded with stuff from the P1E, possibly the new radios and mode 5 IFF, maybe even the improved MIDS and I think digital integration of the IRIS-T isn’t that unlikely either. Yet those T1 aircraft will merely be used for home defence and given the tight budgets I don’t think those aircraft will be upgraded anytime soon, let alone that there might be some limitations imposed by the hardware. T2 aircraft are scheduled to be upgraded to P1E, this includes the airframes currently delivered, but it remains yet to be seen if there will be a P2E or not. Or to cut it short in the forseeable future their will be no full commonality for the Typhoon fleet across the different built standards.
Since you are the Typhoon guru 🙂 could you post/point me to a list of whats going on in terms of capabilities yet to be added to the Typhoon or whats part of T3A, as we know it. Be glad to brush up if I have missed something.
According current plans T3A aircraft will be quite similar to the late built T2, which includes P1E. A new data transmition system for maintainance/technical personal is under development and T3A aircraft will have direct provisions for AESA and CFT, new computers and data busses including a MIL STD 1760E weapons interface bus (MIL STD 1760B is currently used) and upgrades to the power generation and cooling systems. Basically T3A will provide an even greater growth potential and we might see at least some of the stuff previously linked to T3 later on, just not at the beginning of the deliveries. We can read a lot about a possible AESA integration, my take is we’ll see it on T3A aircraft, maybe not from the very first delivery and possibly not on all aircraft or at least not for all customers at that time.
————————————————————————–
Just some additional notes and thoughts regarding T3B.
The partner nations are commited to the numbers they have specified and if not all customers agree on the reduction, those who reduce have to compensate the others. T3B is likely to be ordered, albeit some customers want to resell these aircraft to export customers. The problem is there are some 124 aircraft left as part of T3B so who is going to take these aircraft? It might well be that the customers have to take T3B and are stuck with it if no customers are found. Some might mouth ball their aircraft, others might be happy. It’s not like the Luftwaffe appreciates the governments decision for example. It’s a political decision to cut, not a military one and the Luftwaffe has repeatedly stated that it needs 180 aircraft to maintain operational capabilities. One has to realise that the current number of more than 300 aircraft is to be reduced to 265 (including 180 Eurofighters).
Scorpion82Scorpion82, any idea on whats in Tranche 3 B thats not in Tranche3A, and how they differ?
Thanks
No not even T3A is fully defined by now. I expect a possible T3B to be similar to T3A with some spiral development enhancements (mostly software and possibly weapons) which will find their way in the aircraft anyway.
—————————————————————————-
What our local F-35 fanboys don’t get is that all those nations aren’t reducing numbers to procure more of your super duper F-35s.
It has to be taken into account that reducing the german order would also mean a reduction in force structure. In such an event the JaboG 33 at Büchel is likely to be closed. It’s not that the Luftwaffe is all for it, but that politicians are looking for cuts on cost grounds.
Scorpion82Very simple. After the reunification of Germany there was no money left for the Eurofighter really. The GAF people had not a serious intrest in the MiG-29 for obvious reasons. A follow-up order from GDR times was canceled despite some financial losses from that. Even the high-time F-4F were upgraded to ICE, when the low hour MiG-29s had to be run down as fast a possible to keep the Eurofighter as the single option alive. The Eurofighter-program was saved by stretching the procurement time and use money to cover the spiraling development cost similar the Rafale or the F-22. 😎
The plans to upgrade the F-4F to ICE standard were made in the second half of the 80s at a time when Germany wasn’t reunited, to keep the aircraft operationally relevant as a successor still required many years before being fielded in adequate numbers. The Luftwaffe took the MiG-29s as they were. They didn’t suit the NATO doctrine as they weren’t designed to do so and they weren’t meant to last an enternity either. Anyway the radar didn’t live up to the expectations they had due overestimating it before they got their hands on it.
Scorpion82Scorp,
AFAIK, the vipers would be ltd to manouvering (for lock breaking), I am not sure on what kind of ECM fit PAF vipers used in the late 90s. As far as the Topaz thing goes, it was just to point out that not all MiG-29s were as handicapped as those flown by the Luftwaffe. I would think, in consequence of the abovementioned incident as well as its superiority in the A2A arena vs. the IAF m2k, that the sets deployed by the IAF (although still the N019) were quite capable. Not all the tinkering that an AF (esp. one as secretive as the IAF) is open to the public eye. For instance, while the original IAF Baaz had the Sirena RWR; images on the net show that circa 2003, it was already fitted with a Tarang variant.
As said I’m not that familar with the N-019M and refered to the original N-019 here. The N-001 of the Su-27 was a better design in many ways over the N-019.
Scorpion82That former claims had the coming Typhoon in mind. None was intrested to endanger the procurement of that, when the politicans did learn more about the strong-points of the MiG-29. The GAF-pilots had no problems to bash the F-16Cs and F-18Cs with their MiG-29s, when the Gripen C was seen as a serious opponent, because pilots did use the advice already.
The main advice for their opponents was to stay fast and keep some distance or use the AIM-120*. 😉
What should it have had to do with the Eurofighter coming? We speak about the radar only here and it was heavily overestimated before they put it through real tests. The Luftwaffe used its F-4F and MiG-29 complementary with the F-4F taking the BVR part and the MiG-29 the WVR part and this wasn’t just up to the missile alone.
Scorpion82Wrong. The main disadvantage was the lack of automatic mode selection at first. No severe disadvantage at first, when the MiG-29s were operated in a network and in a single mission only.
To judge a system is related to the doctrine in force. 😉
The lack of automatism is a servere drawback and Luftwaffe experience showed that the radar was neither overly jamming resistant, nor really good at locking on targets against ground clutter. And manually switching between modes to optimise performance (the different modes use different PRFs to cover various aspect angles etc.) and manually sweeping the antenna aren’t really effective at all. Range appears not to be better than on the APG-66 in the early versions and that despite a larger aperture.
@Cola
There is merely the baseline N-019 and the downgraded export variants EA and EB, the upgraded N-019M and the “multirole” derivate N-019MP.
Scorpion82Perhaps the original set was. However, it has seen some upgrades – Topaz? The IAF baaz for sure has. I remember there was a story floating around of an IAF fulcrum locking onto a PAF viper around 1999. It seems the vipers (there were two of them) had a hard time breaking lock.
USS.
The Topaz might be a little different thing. In which way did they try to break the lock, just by manoeuvering? Anyway it’s quite unspecific and there is no indication that the Topaz is so much better at all. The Zhuk-M would be an entirely different beast.
Scorpion821.) Already reported and would better suit in the related news thread
2.) A decision on T3B has yet to be made and such a decision is about 3 years away
3.) Eurofighters diverted to Austria (just 11 not 15 from the Luftwaffe) are already replaced as part of T2
4.) A customer would need to be found in the first place
Scorpion82Depends on which fulcrums you talk about. The IAF baaz upgrades as well as the IN MiG-29Ks will both have ODL. In case AWACS are used, my bet would be on the fulcrum thanks largely to its excellent IRST and acceleration.
Flex,
apart from the words of AM Masand as posted by Quadbike, I recall reading that the IAF Baaz often bested the M2k in DACT 7:1 iirc. Thanks largely to its powerful N019 radar.
IMO, A2A, the fulcrum is clearly ahead of its legacy counterparts. Only the Eurocanards/F-15K+ will possibly have some edge on this bird, esp. when the AESA come online.
A2G, the F-16, is slightly ahead I would guess.
USS.
I was more of the impression that the N-019 is more or less a piece of junk.
Scorpion82Well Thales RBE2 brochure (for the original PESA) included a hint about the NCTR capabilities.
Scorpion82The second, 2009 order for F3s consists of 60 aircraft. Nine of these are Ms (M39-47) and 51 are for the air force, but what is the breakdown going to be between Bs and Cs?
Are these the Rafale F3-O4T aircraft, or F3-OT?
Due to enter service with AESA (probbaly with NCTR mode), and DDM NG MAWS (provision for DIRCM).
These are the F3-O4T. I thought NCTR would be already available for current Rafales?
Scorpion82Updates
What has happened in recent times on the Typhoon front?
– Block 8B aircraft has been delivered to the AMI and RAF by now, albeit it is unknown when type acceptance was given
– RAF Typhoons from No.3F sqn participated in the UAE’s advanced leadership course, similar to the NATO TLP (formerly at Florennes, now at Albacete)
– Participation in the ongoing Dubai airshow
– While block 8B is still not completed we are yet awaiting P1E in the not to distant future as well as the delivery of the Striker helmets from next year
– Negotiation are continueing for the T3A capabilities package and a contract might be signed within the next 3 – 4 month
That so far for now.
cheers
Scorpion82Just found !!??? 😮
????? I thought the Korean Eagles are powered by the GE F110 …. Why should they replace nearly new-built engines in new airframes ????
Deino ????
The second batch of 21 F-15K is powered by the F100, while the first batch of 40 aircraft is powered by the F110.
Scorpion82Is it possible that there are worries that the first engine (F-135) will be so over budget that it will make the price of the aircraft look bad. Excluding the price of the engine will allow customers to draw their own conclusions once they have a choice of engines.
But this requires an alternative engine programme being funded. As long as this is not the case the customers have no choice and an aircraft without engine is no aircraft at all.
Sign In
