aurcovHow many air to air kills have F-16’s claimed for example?
Actually 72. By Israeli AF, USAF, Pakistani AF, Dutch AF (Kosovo 1999) against 0 loses…
I tend to agree with SOC and Phantom II. The JSF was designed with some targets, like exceeding the F 16 with at least 25 % in all areas: maneuvrability, acceleration, combat radius (actually in this field the improvement is something like 80 %!). Also the only true drawback of the F 16 ( 25 deg AoA) is resolved in the F 35 because of the upper intake area (that induces strong vortex) and double vertial tail.
aurcovForgive me , this may sound stupid , but what about a customized version of the Raptor for Japan. Airframe and F119-PW-100 of the Raptor, but RADAR, FBW, Weapons etc, etc be Japanese. Raptor which can fire AAM-4, AAM-5, ASM-#??
A Raptor with the APG 77 replaced with Japanese radar, with the AMRAAM replaced by AAM 4, would be like a Ferrari in which you pull out that fabulous engine and you replace it with the engine of Suzuki Swift.
As for FBW, I am not aware of any Japanese designed one
aurcovIf true, why should we take third party claims as credible as well? Absolute best they can do is get data from manufacturers themselves, not being able to test the equipment themselves.
Not referring to brochures but data from actual users. Probably would become public eventually.
No one is debating that AESA is technologically levels ahead but the actual raw performance still depends on traditional radar parameters and a miniscule APG-80 cannot acheive the same performance of a monster radar.
Well, you seem convinced that the Bars is superior to the APG 80. I’m not. I guess that’s it. I don’t want to continue the debate.
Now, back to the AESA topic. It is really unbelievable the energy consumption of AESA shipborne radars. If the SPY 1 radar will be used continuously during the cruise, the range of an Arleigh Burke destroyer would be reduced with some 1800 Nmiles.
aurcovIt’s about 150,000 $ with installation http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/pages_hmcs/05_pr2004_0401.html.
And the Rafael one is so cheap because irt’s more advanced compared with JHMCS.
aurcovHMD is an investment in certain luxury
Hardly. The JHCMS is ~ 100,000 $. The Israelis (Rafael) give them free if you buy the Python V.
The fact is that you could be using civilian GPS for an acceptable accuracy, as well.
It’s a little exageration–a civilian GPS could have a precision of > 30 m. This is by no means a precision guided munitions. You need to control your own satellites to be sure.
If China starts to make them, they will fgo for less than $10 a piece..
😀 The Occident would probably be forced to imposed textile-like quotas…
aurcovIT would be interesting to see where the Mig-31’s radar would fit in there.
We can ask Firebar :p …
APG-80 is much smaller than Bars in the first place. Having slightly inferior parameters at greatly reduced space and weight is alone a success, don’t you think?
I agree.
Because it pretty much eliminates the need of HUD, for instance. So, as much as you spend on HMD you save on HUD.
Well, this time I’m not agree: there is no plane, among the hundreds fitted with HMD (Israeli F 15 and F 16, USAF F 15, F 16, USN F 18 C/D/E/F, EF, Rafale, Grippen) where the HMD elimenated the HUD. The first fighter where the HUD will be eliminated will be F 35
For two reasons.. 1. Because GPS guided weapons are not limited by weatrher conditions. 2. Because they are chea as hell.. One JDAM set goes for cca $35,000, it is a fraction of what a Paveway III would cost..
yes and no; the JDAM is indeed cheap because USAF/USN ordered over 100,000 of them; OTOH, the French AASM, while more flexible (since it is modular) costs > 100,000 Euro. Yet this is not the main point. The cost of GPS satellites is what really matters.
Becasue AESA is the future.. As long as T/R modules become cheap, they is no need to stick with PESA whcih will lose its price advantage. Wait until China learn to produce them and see what happens
Already the TR module cost a little >100 $ (compared with a few 1000 $ just some years ago). If you remember a previous post the APG 79 is somewhere 3,5 mil. $
aurcovGPS weapons are important but u cannot ignore the other tech also.
Correct, but you forget one minor detail: while the cost of developing/improving some EO/IR/TV/man-in-the-loop weapons are modest since they are based on a technology known for decades, the investments in GPS weapons are important and the investments in a GPS-type satelite constellation are enormous. I repeat the question: why would anyone make those investments if the capabilities offered by the weapons are only “marginally better”?
may be just there export customers want aesa. again u have to look at cost vs benefit. a non aesa F-16 is as effective as aesa F-16 for most missions.
Well, the countries that really have cash in their hands (US, UAE, Singapore, the countries forming the Eurofighter consortium, France, Sweden) appear to select AESA.
AESA , without a doubt, is a more advanced concept. BUT this fact dont contradict to “AESA are only marginally better than PESA”. Example: We all know what a Pentium 4 with SSE3 is only marginally better (if any) than Pentium 4 with just SSE2. Still Intel make from SSE3 technology a big marketing name and AMD is very happy to announce SSE3 support in they next processor.
I believe that the benfits of AESA vs. PESA are a litlle bit more than “only marginally better”.
aurcovNIIP is not Phazotron and there is no such thing as a standard Russian/American/Martian RCS reference figure. For example, the Oko brochure uses 1.2 sq.m targets as the reference, the Kopyo-A uses 2 sq.m and the N019 uses 3 sq.m.
I put the link to NIIP to show that the target RCS is not mentioned.
Lastly, miles and nautical miles are not the same. bring_it_on already showed me the same article a coupla times.
You should know by now that in US (AvLeak was American last time I checked) when someone talks about aviation, miles are always nautical miles…
I would generally trust AWST but I think that its a tad unfair to compare an official figure with that from a third party source.
I can’t say that AvLeak was right with 70-80 nmiles. But are you 100 % sure that the Russian advertising material is true? By the way, I check regularly the sites of both US radar manufacturers (NG and Raytheon), but I still did not see any precise data. There are many sources, but no manufacturer or USAF official siteThat makes me wonder why the Russians are so open…
The baseline N011M mentioned in the site is also far from the customised N011M Phase-III on deployed Su-30MKIs. The actual range is commensurate with the monster size and power of the radar. To say that the APG-80 has comparable range is just plain wrong, as are the claims of the N011M not being able to interleave modes and detect less targets.
I repeat, I can’t say that the APG 80 is comparable (or better) with the N001M whatever phase you want. But you seems 100 % conviced that the data on the Russian brochures are true.
Anyway, let’s say (just to stop this debate) that the APG 80 is in the same class ( 🙂 ) but little inferior ( :p ) to the N001M. But if you look at the apperture of both radars, at their output, you can understand the advantages of AESA vs. PESA. Considering also that the RCS ratio of Su/Viper is ~5-10, you get a clearer picture.
As a sidenote, in this forum I saw many debates:
1)is the Israeli/US/Western Europeans HMDs really superior to the Russian HMSs? Many said that the HMD is just a fancy thing, that a crude HMS is quite enough;
2)is GPS weapons really so superior compared to EO/IR/TV? Many said that GPS weapons don’t worth the efforts.
3) finally this AESA debate
If these forum coleagues are right, I’d ask myself:
1) why everybody (including Indian AF that will put French HMD on their new MiGs 29) translate to HMD, if it doesn,t offer too much vs. HMS?
2) why Western Europeans are purring dozens of billions of Euros in Galileo, Russians are continuing with Glonass and even China has plans to create a (limitted) similar system? Why France, UK, Sweden , Israel, Russia is investing billions in developing GPS guided weapons?
3) finnaly, if AESA are only marginally better than PESA, why the f**k the Russians do never forget to mention that they will have a functional AESA some years from now, the Europeans work hard to AMSAR, the Israeli will have the Elta 2052 and even India and China are seriously investigating the concept?????
aurcov…Uninformed public and US Congress get the impression that the APG-77 is able to locate targets at 120 miles and stay undetected at any day of the week…
:p :p :p
I don’t know about “uninformed public”, but you are totally wrong about the US Congress–it is the most dangerous ennemy of the F 22! I would not give to much chances to any Su3X facing the Raptor, but I guarantee you that the poor Raptor is helpless in the face of US congressmen…
aurcovFor an adult you are bloody annoying naieve. Remember that it all works nicely in theory only. The same theory would render F-117 invulnerable to SAM systems like SA-3 or a claim a situation where a MiG-21 with R-3S shoots down an AIM-7E BVR-equipped F-4D/E, impossible. There were many pilots who really believed this over Vietnam. They called them POWs some years later.
🙂
I don’t find your examples very illustrative:
-the F 117 (the only one shot down) was more likely a victim of bad mission planning. Also, don’t forget that this plane performed in Irak (1991) and Kossovo (1999) over 5000 sorties. One plane lost in 5000 sorties over cities like Bagdad and Belgrade! That’s probably any AF dream…
-An F 4 with a Sparrow had the first chance over a MiG 21 any day, but only when used as supposed to: i.e. in BVR. But as you probably know (judging after the number of your posts, most of them balanced and educated) the politicians imposed USAF some dumb ROE — the US pilots must visually identify the ennemy. That led inherently to WVR fights, when not only the MiG 21 , but even the less performant MiG 19 (or MiG 19 for that matter) proved a difficult opponent for the Phantoms.
As for F 22, I never said that is invincible. We awere talking about situational awarness. And yes, with the APG 77 and ALR 94 combination, an F 22 is in the situation to know what’s going around from hundreds of Nmiles, while the chances of the ennemy to locate him are slim.
In fact, some specialists say that the ALR 94 is the most sophisticated system on the Raptor (I can’t post a link, because the Journal of Electronic Defense site is no longer free, but I will try to reproduce from memory). The ALR 94 is a sort of RWR on steroids. It actually can locate ennemy fighter radars at over 400 km (that’s a little less than the highly specialised, Boeing 707-hosted RC 135!). Its accuracy is better than the accuracy of a radar in TWS. Now, in order to reduce even more the chances that the ennemy would detect the APG 77 emmissions, this one is used only for precise ranging, sending a signal (described “as narrow as a laser beam”) for a fraction of a second in the precise direction indicated by the ALR 94. When finally the bad guy enter in the range of an AMRAAM, the ALR 94 can provide firing solution, without the help of the radar.
aurcovIts not nessesary true. PESA also can have multiple transmitters – 2,3, or 10.
And how many transmitter has Bars? :p Check this article:
http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html There is only one TWT…
Its not. Allthought nominal emmiting power in LPI mode is indeed at maximum, the returning multi-frequence signal cant be recived by all modules as good as single phase – single frequence signal. Plus worse S/N ratio due to higher noise and small computing errors by combining all these signals to single picture.
The figure for APG 77 is 120 Nmiles for a 1 sqm target in LPI mode…
aurcov[ said for net radiated power. I also said the PESA would be heavier on the same criteria.
Spread spectrum transmission is possible in PESA, but the versatility is obviously less than AESA.
I am not saying PESA is better than AESA. But it is not TOO inferior either.
Spread spectrum transmission is not possible in PESA, because it has only one TWT (one transmiter)- it emmits at one frequency in a given moment.
Sorry but this is not true. The actual range for the N011M Phase-III is quite different from what is available in open source ie the NIIP site which mentions the range of the basic N011M to be not less than 140 km for an F-16 type target. The range of the APG-80 is closer to 110 km (1 sq.m target).
NIIP site do not mention the size of the target: http://www.niip.info/main.php?page=raz_sky_bars as you can see, the specifications of Bars do not mention the target RCS; but here http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1106 (at the bottom of the page) you have some leaflets form the rival company NIIR Phazotron (for Kopyo M, Zhuk M and Zhuk MSE radars). It results that the standard target for Russian companies is 5 sqm. So, if 140 km is detection range for a 5 sqm target, it results that for a 1 sqm target, the detection range is ~ 93 km.
OTOH, that’s an article from AW&ST:
UAE’s F-16s will be envy of USAF pilots
By David A Fulfhum/Washington, John D Morrocco/London and, Edward H Phillips/Dallas
.
.
.The Block 60 F-16 will have several features sure to be envied by U.S. pilots, said a Lockheed Martin official:
Anactiye electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that produces a classified 70-80-mile range against a l-meter-square target. Thats about 10-20 mi. better than the current top-of-the-line F-15C interceptor and three times better than the current USAF F-16. The longer range radar will make the F-16 a much more lethal platform for employing beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-120. Moreover, it employs frequency hopping for low-probability-of-intercept operation, a technique to slow detection by a foe.
.
.
.
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology (03/13/00 Pg. 24 & 25)
70-80 nm is ~127-145 km for 1 sqm.
I suppose you have totally misunderstood the entire concept. You are mixing maximum range figures with stealthy LPI mode and claim those as combined but you are mistaken. AESA only achieves maximum detection ranges in conventional single frequency mode, ergo signals from all T/R modules are combined together to create one powerful beam. This mode is no different from PESA or slotted array radars and makes you exactly the same lighthouse in a clear night as with other types
In LPI mode signals are so weak that utilizing maximum ranbe figures is a pure herecy. In LPI mode the detection range of an AESA is reduced greatly because it virtually splits one powerful radar into dozens of small and weak emitters with limited range..
Let me sum it up – although AESA definitely offers higher versatility and features to use at will, forget your concept of making yourself cozy in the seat while observing enemies with AESA from 100+ Nm range while they have no clue about you. This is good for Tom Clancy books…
The spread spectrum mode is appliable at max. radar output. And yes, in a F 22 the “concept of making yourself cozy in the seat while observing enemies with AESA from 100+ Nm range while they have no clue about you” applies.
By the way, I did’t read any of Tom Clancy’s book.
aurcov1. For the same net radiated power, PESA would give better detection performance than AESA.
It’s a joke, I presume. Otherwise how do you explain that the APG 80 in the small nose of the F 16 blk. 60 has a bigger detection range than the huge Bars in the nose of the MKI?
However, aside the longer detection range, aside the fact the it can be used simultaneously for AA and AG, aside the jamming capability, aside the bigger number of target detected, the biggest advantage is that an AESA can be used at its max. output without being detected and located by ennemy RWRs
The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems. The AN/APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN/APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar’s signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm)
In plain english this means that in a mech scanned radar (also in PESA) the microwave feed network in the back of the antenna is powered by a single RF source (TWT). So, in a given moment, a PESA is emmitting a strong pulse at a single frequency, while an AESA is splitting the signal in dozens of frequency, each signal being dozens time weaker. Let say that the AESA-equiped fighter is 100 km away from its ennemy and using its radar at full power. However, with the AESA, each signal (at different frequencies) is so weak, that it could be compared with the signal of a PESA radar located at 500 km away, so the enemmy RWR is not triggered.
What this means in operational terms? A PESA (Rafale, Su 30 MKI) when used at its full power will be like a lighthouse in a clear night, while an AESA, even at its full power has small chances to triger the ennemy RWR.
Combined with VLO features (F 22, F 35) or with smaller RCS (F 16, SuperHorror) this really gives you an edge: you are aware of what’s going on at great distance (over 100 Nm) while the other guy has no clue where you are.
Drawbacks of AESA? There is one: cooling an AESA is a big issue — it takes space for the pipes and heat exchangers. That’s the reason why a regular F 16 blk. 50 cannot be fitted with an APG 80, without remanufacturing the entire nose, while the APG 79 cannot be put on a regular F 18C because it simply can’t fit.
aurcovThe U.S. was NOT “Superiour” in anyway in this catagorey in KOSAVO, the only hit 13 of Serbia’s 500+ Tanks, Serbian Military used modified Microwave Ovens to operate with thier door’s open to interfear with NATO’s GPS guides on their (NATOS’s) Bombs, which caused Doezens of them to not hit thier targets, so much for yoye “Supieriour Hardwar”.
The fact that US destroyied “only 13 of 500 tanks” is highly debatable. However, even if this was true, it has nothing to do with GPS-guided weapond accuracy; it is the vegetation of this Balkan region that allowed camunflage, so the targets were hard to locate . But this would have apply for any type of weapon used in this region.
OTOH, in Afganistan, GPS weapon (JDAM) proved deadly, since the arrid terain in the region allow an easy target location. Also in Kosovo, if the Serbs would not have give up this province and asked for peace, ground war would have begun. In this case the Serbian tanks and APCs would have to move instead to stay concealed. What would have been the result? Look how USAF decimated the Iraqi Republican Guard in 2003.
The GPS guided is what you need today if you really want to have “precission” weapons. Laser-guided, TV guided are no longer the most modern guidance-US fielded them in the late ’60 in Vietnam. Nowadays you must have GPS weapons.
If this would not be true, why do you think that other powers aside the US would invest $ billions in GPS-like satelites systems (Russia’s GLONASS, EU Galileo, or the Chinese GPS embrion that Sekant mentioned) or in GPS weapons: France AASM, UK-France Storm Shadow, German-Swedish Taurus, Israeli Spike, Russian KAB-S?
A few years ago, General John Jumper, the former USAF Chief of Staff was asked what was the most valuable technology US developped for military pourposes in the last half-century. He reply without hesitation GPS. Not stealth, not cruise missile, not AESA radars, not active radar missile (AMRAAM), but GPS! This guy must knew what he was talking about: he flew >4500 hours on 10 different types of fighters planes, including F 4, F 15, F 16; among these, >1500 were combat hours in Vietnam. I believe that he knows better than you and me-just aviation fans 😉
aurcovTrue, but that’s marginal cost of production. You don’t ever get a combat aircraft for that unless you already have it in service in numbers, & if you did, & weren’t already operating it, you couldn’t use it. For a new customer, you have to add on training, support equipment, spares, etc. At least 50% more, unless you place a very large order. Consider the recent F-15 orders for S. Korea & Singapore, at about $100 million dollars per copy. Austrias Eurofighters cost about 70% more overall than the actual cost of the raw aircraft. That’s normal.
So if an ex-factory F-22 costs $110 mn, & the USA doesn’t want to recover any of the development cost at all from export customers, then the actual contract price would probably be between $160 & $200 million each.
Of course there is a big difference (at least 50%) between the price of an ex-factory F 22 and the price including all the logistic tail.
However, if Japan will decide to buy the Raptor, US will deliver them without the R&D costs. Those are already included in the 179 ordered initially for USAF. Also, US is interested to keep fighter production rolling between the date when the last of 179 (well, 183 with recent additions) of the Raptors and the moment the F 35 production lines will start.
Sign In
