Agreed. Engineers at Manching I have spoken with estimated thrust potential of future EJ200 versions as high as 120-125 kN with reheat, this all with almost unchanged weight. No idea how MTU is gonna achieve that but there is no reason to reject this. Compared to present 90 kN that would greatly enhance Typhoon’s agility.

1) today: 1035 kg/90 kN… that it; let’s wait and see…
2) it won’t enhance the agility. it will (if achieved) enhance its acceleration and sustained turn rate.

By the way, don’t figure that this thrust increase will be without an increase in engine weight!

Well, if you want to have it that way, then the engine development in the US must have gone backwards during the last 50 years. Because F100-PW-220 produces 110 kN of thrust and is 1475 kg heavy…

The J 75 was a turbojet; F 100 was (is) a turbofan. Claiming that US have gone backwards in going from turbojet to turbofan, means little knowledge about jet engine (or your usual anti-american rethoric) 😀 or, was it a joke? :p

I have even read, these two sides are competing each other heavily and Fencer crews are able to outmaneuver the Tomcats in some dogfight scenarios! Must be helluva fun down there…

:p
You read too many comics!

Are you sure? Modern RWRs certainly dont require such large antennae. The size of the dielectric covering seems to indicate that they are the SPJ antennae instead.

yeah, it seems like jammers to mee, too

there is an integrated electronic warfare suite with the Northrop Grumman ‘Falcon Edge’ internal electronic countermeasures system, the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-80 “Agile Beam Radar” with AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array), an electronic warfare management system, fiber-optic avionics data bus and up to eight chaff/flare dispensers, as well as advanced friend or foe. The aircraft’s advanced avionics suite has room available for future improvements. The Block 60’s modular mission computer has a processing throughput of 12.5 million instructions per second and provides sensor and weapons integration.The ALQ-165 electronic countermeasures system, also known as the Airborne Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ), is a sophisticated, high-power jamming system developed to fulfill both U.S. Navy and Air Force requirements – although the USAF abandonned the program a while ago. Missile warning systems on the Block 60 provide advanced warning of approaching missiles so the pilot can activate countermeasures in time. The Block 60 F-16 can accommodate both active and passive missile warning systems currently under development.The Block 60 F-16 retains the full armament capability of the Block 50’s and adds several new capabilities. The Block 60’s basic design and weapon interfaces are compatible with projected future weapons including new air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM). The aircraft will also support all-weather standoff weapons, such as the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), and AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM).

The Block 60 F-16 has been developed with planned growth improvements and technology advances in virtually all major areas, including engines, avionics, and weapons.

bring it on, this is an old article, I suppose. The Falcon Edge, is inded made by NorthropGrumman, but is is different (much better) from the ALQ165 (this one used on F 18 C/D and F 14D in USN and by the South Korean F 16). By the way, this

The Block 60’s modular mission computer has a processing throughput of 12.5 million instructions per second and provides sensor and weapons integration

is a good one too. The UAE blk. 60 has much more powerfull computers based on Power PCs.
George J

From Vaya’s MKI page:
For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range. The radar can track and engage 20 air targets and engage the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously (this capability was introduced in the Indian RC1 and RC2).

350km?; 😮 😮 😮
Here, that’s a source that I would consider more reliable than the Indian one 😀 -the manufacturer of this radar (NIIP-Tikhomirov)! Go to: http://www.niip.info/main.php?page=raz_sky_bars They said:

maximum angles of deflection with tracking individual target;
– In azimuth +70 deg
– In elevation +40 deg

the zone of scanning with the the simultaneous target tracking
-5.500 sq. deg (?)

the zone of scanning during search and target lock-on in the close maneuverability battle, deg.:
– In azimuth; +3; +10 deg
– In elevation -15… +40; +7,5

Receiver
Number of channels: 3
the factor of noise, dB: 3

Transmitter power in kW, not less than
– Peak 4-5
– Average 1,2
– illumination (frequency control) 1
Programmed processor of the signal
the speed of the entry of data: 28 MHz
peak productivity with the fulfillment
operation of the type “butterfly”: 75 MOPS
radar control processor
Number of processors: 3
Flash- memory of processor: 16 Mb
Static storage of processor: 16 Mb
“air-to-air” mode
Distance of aquisition for a fighter, is not less than:
– in the head-on courses: 120-140km
– in the overtaking courses: 60km
Regime “air-surface”
The detection range, is not less than
– railroad bridge: 80-120km
– group of the tanks: 40-50km
– destroyer: 120-150km
the maximum resolution: about 10m

BASIC MODES OF RADAR OPERATION:

“AIR-TO-AIR”
Velocity Search;
Range-While-Search;
Search and seizure in the regime of close battle;
Track-While-Scan up to 15 targets for purposes of the estimation of tactical situation, conducting of the group actions of aircraft without the curtailment of search;
Precision tracking up to 4 targets for engaging the targets without the curtailment of search;
Illumination of targets and the transfer of the midcourse updates for the missile guidance;
Recognition of the type of target according to its spectral characteristics;
Definition of the characteristics of multiple targets with the retention of search.

“AIR-TO-SURFACE”
Real beam mapping;
Doppler beam sharpening mapping;
Synthetic aperture radar mapping;
Ground moving target selection;
Ground target ranging;
Tracking up to 2 ground targets.

“AIR – SEA”
Sea search;
Distant sea search;
Moving waterborne target selection;
Moving or fixed waterborne target ranging

So the detection range is ~ 140 km!. 350 km might be true for a B 747! Also, 140 km is valid for the “standard” target, wich in Russia is 5 sqm (in US is 1sqm). This would mean that a Su 3 MKI would detect an F 16 (~1-1.5 sqm) at ~100 km!.

The TIT for Al-31F is roughly 2500C, that renders the argument pretty irrelevant..

? 😮

Flex, that’s 2500 F not C… if it would be C, now that would be some really high TIT :diablo:

About pointing accuracy: the aiming is done by a set of 6 IRSTs (AAL 42) wich is the F14D’s IRST; the range is measured by a CO2 laser mounted in a lantirn pod.This is from Lockheed Martin missiles & fire control site (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11272&rsbci=13640&fti=124&ti=0&sc=400):

Airborne Laser Infrared Surveillance Subsystem
ABL/IRSSTM

DESCRIPTION:

The Airborne Laser (ABL) is the U.S. Air Force’s radical new approach for disabling or destroying threat ballistic missiles immediately after launch, during their vulnerable boost phase of launch. Onboard a Boeing 747, the ABL will use the Infrared Surveillance Subsystem (IRSS) to detect and precisely locate threat missiles for engagement by the ABL’s megawatt class laser. IRSS leverages some of the latest Infrared Search and Track (IRST) and Active Ranging Sensor (ARS) technologies to perform the real-time detection and precise target tracking functions.

The ABL team is comprised of Boeing, responsible for building the 747 aircraft and the BMC4I computer; TRW, responsible for building the laser; and Lockheed Martin, responsible for Beam Control/Fire Control and the IRSS. Employing six IRSTs, IRSS is capable of rapidly searching a large airspace volume, generating precise two-dimensional tracks on threat missiles during both their boost and post-boost phases of flight. The IRST system can generate detections at very long ranges, then handing off to a CO2 laser ARS for track refinement and precise range measurement. The ABL project is currently in the Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) phase. Live fire testing of the entire ABL system is scheduled for 2003.

…not to mention the crappy F 22 that can’t go over M 2 because of these pathetic F 119s…

but then I wonder how F404-GE would perform with Russian maintenance conditions

My dear Flex you should wonder about somethig else: how these f 404 could perform so well in some of the worst conditions: on sea… if you know what saline atmosphere could do to engines, of course.