Scorpion82Yip, I know. Thing is, nothing reaches the real world. Like AESA for EF2k. Lots of studies, maybe a prototype, then – nothing. In the meantime even Ivan is starting to field the stuff!
I’m afraid people misinterpret things here. AESA was not planned for the first Eurofighters from the beginning. AESA is proposed since years as potential future option for the aircraft and it has ever been stated to be an option for T3 and it still is. I don’t see why to complain about that that much. What have the Russians fielded in terms of fighter AESA radars? NOTHING, same for other Europeans (Rafale & Gripen). So far there are demonstrators for all these aircraft, some might be more ahead or not, who knows.
Scorpion82Ι read about the 40 km in a post in F16. net, which i *think* was written by “Toan”.
What I speak about is the range of the laser range finder, not the TV or IRST components, these can have even higher ranges, but they won’t provide the required range data.
1)The Chinese Su are expected that by 2020 will have aesa radars good enough to see any stealth aircraft at 25+nm.
25 nm isn’t that special especially if you consider the range future AAMs will have.
2) That the SU family has already the ability to track via IRST an aircraft at 27nm head on and 50nm if seen from the tail.
Yes but not necessarily against a stealthy airframe (stealth or to use the correct terms LO/VLO, is not just about RCS). Add weather and other influences and these figures might quite nicely go down. I have no doubt that advanced IRST systems might provide a good range even against those stealth targets, but if it will be sufficient enough is questionable.
And mind you, uses the word track. If the IRST can track it, MICA IR can kill it. I don’t think it is insane to expect for OSF2 a capability of 40km in tracking.
As said above, its about LRF range not that one of the IRST. If the MICA can kill the target as soon as the IRST can track it just means the range is not necessarily that impressive. 50-60 km maybe at best, probably even lower. But I think it is mainly a thumb rule for the french. Without LRF and any form of other ranging you will have to fire the weapon at luck. Maybe you can estimate the range your self from the “zoom” of the optical devices, who knows, but that will still not tell you how fast the target is. Theoretically with the right software it should be possible to gather all required data for an accurate firing solution. So far no aircraft has such a software, at least not officially.
Scorpion82I never disputed the Captor has some advantages, apparently at least in detection range and gimbal. Most of the other details, LPI, locking range, ECCM capability are highly classified, so it is only logical assumption to think that at least in the LPI and ECCM arena, an ESA would be better. Those features, seem more important to me in a networked modern battlefield.
I’m no expert to go into more details, but it escapes me why such a PESA system should have a higher ECM resitance. LPI is than of benefit if it really works and you have the required support to detect the target nontheless. For max range there is a lot power required and LPI doesn’t work well with that. Might be interesting to know more, but it is unlikely that we’ll get any details. Are there any reports from the french about experiences with the RBE2 in LPI modes during exercises?
The argument is pretty moot though, if you consider both radars are to be eventually replaced by AESA types. It will be in the F3 rafale for the meteor arrival, and you said it will be for at least the german EFs.
In the end it’s a moot point for the 2012+ timeframe yes. As said most if not all of the customers show an interest.
I was just talking about the possibility to lock a target with the IRST. Of course it could cue a Mica EM as well as a Mica IR, and of course an AMRAAM too. Someone quoted the 40km range in good weather condition, which seems pretty good to me.
Nic
40 km sounds indeed not bad, if the laser range finder can indeed go that far.
Scorpion82The Sargent Fletcher (now owned by Cobham) buddy pod used on Italian & German Tornados fits into a 300 US gallon (1136 litre) tank. Typhoon carries a 1000L centre line tank.
Well the buddy-buddy tank used on german Tornados is based on a 1500 l tank. It is likely to have a lower fuel load due the refueling drogue system. This pod is to large for the Typhoon however, just take a look a tightly the 1000 l tank fits between the main gear doors.
Scorpion82Yes, but as already said, integrating a buddy-buddy pod is a minor matter, which could easily be done for any customer which requested it. Cobham integrated its own buddy-buddy pod onto the Su-30 for Malaysia, & that was a £9 million contract. It’s not something worth mentioning as a differentiating factor between types.
The problem of the Typhoon might be the space limitation on the centre line due the main gear position. Ever wondered why no 1500 l tank was proposed for the centre line position?
Scorpion82Well ESA is more modern technology than a mechanical array, which in my opinion is a dead end. I know the captor has some LPI characteristics, as did the RDY2 of the Mirage 2000 dash 5 and 9, but it surely is much less discreet than a PESA and even less than an AESA. I think in this day and age, having a big powerful mechanical array is a bit like a guy walking in the dark with a fashlight…
Well PESA itself isn’t much newer than the planar MSA. It enjoys advantages as well as disadvantages. There were good reasons for both manufacturers to select the specific technologies. Eurofighter could have selected PESA as well, but for the pure AA role MSA offers some advantages. The french situation and role was a bit different than that of the Germans or Brits for example in a cold war scenrio. The Rafale was more meant to penetrate the enemy airspace and strike targets on the ground, with a AA role in mind. For the Typhoon it was more the other way round, more AA, secondary AG. The PESA technology is better suited for LPI and more importantly parallel operations in AA/AG modes. Details about the RBE2s LPI characteristics are unknown how ever, so many here claim it is way superior to Captor here, yet they can’t give any details except for rapid beam sweeping (natural to ESA) and that it is said that specific LPI modes are available. BTW a radar doesn’t soley consist of the antenna alone, something many people seem to forget about.
Every pilot report concerning exercises praise the OSF. I think the main reason the OSF wasn’t ordered is the same as the HMD: budget constraints, knowing it could be added later if need be, especially when the technology will be cheaper. The OSF V2 adressed just that: keeping the OSF up to date with more modern components.
Most of them directy praise the TV component. It’s just that I read that they are less confident about the IR component. Who knows…
Well for one thing being able to lock a missile thanks to the laser rangefinder. It’s less useful to detect a plane with PIRATE when you have to use the radar to get a lock and shoot your missile, than to detect, lock, and shoot your missile at your target without needing to turn your radar on at all.
Nic
PIRATE can at least cinematically range targets, though there are no details available at what ranges and how accurate that is. The question concerning OSF would be at what range as well. Ranging capabilities are also provided by both EWS and offboard target data can be used as well. It seems like many people here believe that it is impossible to launch an ARH missile the very same way. The only difference is that the seeker goes active in the terminal phase of flight.
Scorpion82not really, you claims that Typhoon is the most agile, TVc are there to get lift that Typhoon missing most, Rafale got natural shape for lift…
your claims sounds familiar too many ppl over here, too..
WTF? WHERE have I claimed that the Typhoon is the most agile aircraft? Where please, quote me directly!!! Sorry but I hate that sh!t being accused for something I haven’t said and you try to make your point with that against me, very fine. I’m still sure you are Fonk what ever you say.
Scorpion82i answered to Jack,
Captor E isn’t a Radar system, its the antenna for upgrade, they still use the ERC90 recalled Captor who is in the same league as the RDY2 technolgy speaking!
Captor-E is not necessarily an antenna upgrade, details are still negotiated. CAESAR was based on the Captor-D, but this radar is only a demonstrator. Captor-E might well be a much newer design. And BTW RBE2 was designed at the same time as Captor. PESA doesn’t mean more advanced/newer or better.
Pirate isn’t superior in detection range, would like to see any datas!
145 km detection range was well reported by a couple of sources. French guys claim up to 130 km for the OSF IRST component. It is reported that the french forces are not that satisfied with the IR component of OSF, that’s the reason why no IRST/FLIR has been ordered for batch 3 aircraft, though it is easily possible to retrofit it from the current F2 aircraft.
as mica is around the same seize of the asraam, it gets Short and medium range use and can be reprogramed in real time, the Mica is far more agile with tilt TVC that asraam or iris T haven’t!
MICA is in fact a bit larger than ASRAAM or IRIS-T and IRIS-T has TVC.
FSO is in a highter league than Pirate aswell, 2 tv cam chanels, better electronics integration…
OSF is mainly a system comprising 3 components, while PIRATE is just a single component system. Prove the higher integration grate. How is it better integrated…?
Scorpion82@TOAN
Some feedback from the greek forum on the EF.
– It does have air refuelling (RAF).
– It does have a HMD (RAF).
It can be refueled mid-air, but it can’t refuel other aircraft as there is no buddy-buddy pod integrated.
The HEA HMD is currently NOT available it is supposed to be in 2009.
Scorpion82@Sintra
It’s a typo, it’s in fact EPW II, not III.
Scorpion82well most have better than tvc, bette sweep delta angle, LERX , and close coupled canard… and the most important , didn’t grow weight by 20% from the original airframe.
Fonk is it you? Sounds so familar…
So how much of the “most” have the LEX, close coupled canard/lower swept delta? Oh just the Rafale. Surprise :-p.
Different requirements, different design solutions.
Scorpion82The German Defence Budget for next year already has alocated money for the AESA radar… IOC for 2012 (at least in the document, optimistic these Germans!).
The Germans also contributed with a good part of the money to the CAESAR demonstration phase, and by every acount the Luftwaffe his adamant in getting an AESA set.
Until the Tranche 3 contract his signed we are not going to have a clear view of the Typhoon development spiral, so…
And i would be bloody surprised if the RAF takes five years to use the GPS capability of the Enhanced Paveway III that the Typhoon has already droped!Cheers
Enhanced Paveway II not III and the GPS capability can already be used. So far the pilot has to manually enter the coordinates himself when he wants to engage targets of oppotunity.
Scorpion82Eurofighter GmbH has to do something to keep the EF2k relevant. Gripen NG will have nice electronic capabilities, and will be a fine aircraft for any non-expeditionary air force, making any future sales of EF2k in Europe more than questionable. And in the big league the Super Hornet’s electronics are stealing the show, others wait for the JSF.
Eurofighter GmbH HAS to think about the place of the EF2k on the global market. And right now they are not active enough. AESA, TVC simply have to go into T3, if they want to stay relevant.
Honestly I can’t see where other existing fighters have so much more to offer than the Typhoon in the electronics field. Beside AESA radars on some US fighters, there is nothing special in the F/A-18E/F blk 2 or any other US fighter currently in service. Of course the Typhoon has to be upgraded to maintain its operational relevance, but that is true for any fighter. The Gripen NG is far away from being an operational reality and won’t be fielded before 2015 at all, that is at least 7 years away from now on. Though a lot has delayed in terms of technologies for the Typhoon. The AESA exists a demonstrator and the Luftwaffe has included it in the 2009 budget plan. I have no doubt that AESA will come in there from 2012 onwards and I’m pretty confident that T3 examples will be delivered with AESA systems from the beginning. TVC is an option, but it’s less important than other things. When the weight penalties are low and the cost is not to high, something which the new TVN in the work promises I could imagine that aircraft might be retrofitted in the future, though I don’t think it will be part of the customers T3 configuration. Note that most of the current fighters have no TVC including Gripen, Rafale, F-15/16 & 18. Not even the F-35 will get TVC. Hence I don’t see the lack of TVC a significant disadvantage, of course it is better to have it than not to have it, but one has to weight the operational advantages which are limited, to the tradeoffs in terms of weight, maintainance and cost.
Scorpion82A new 3-D TVN is still under development by ITP, it remains yet to be seen if any of the customers, maybe export customers will have a requirement for TVC. The new nozzle will be based on the current nozzle. New actuators are developed and the nozzle is not supposed to be entirely new. The goal weight and cost savings. The might be a good alternative in comparison to the more expensive and heavier old TVN, but it might also be less flexible. The old one couldn’t just be vectored it was also possible to adjust the diameter! Impressive were the slew rates with 110°/sec almost twice as fast as the much newer KLIVT nozzle.
Scorpion82Isn’t a navalized version of the T-50 planned anyway? With the X-31 they tested automatic landings with extrem AoA using TVC to reduce approach speed and therefore the landing distance. Maybe Sukhoi considers such a possibiliy as well? I’m excited how the beast will finally look like.
Sign In
