star49The MiG-35 AESA shown last year has only 680 T/R modules, because of size & weight issues. The CAESAR antenna tested last year had over 50% more, in an array which was only 75% full – i.e. over twice as many when the array is filled. And the full array is still smaller & lighter than the 680 element MiG array. Older technology T/R modules, da? Total radar weight for the MiG-35 is about 50% more than CAESAR. And yet it has fewer than half as many T/R modules.
Not older technology modules. they are tiled type not the brick type. it is the back end of Zhuk-Me that itself consist of older heavier elements. but thats not the point. They have achieved less than $400 per T/R module even with this small production and willing to gurantee 900hr MTBF. and next year they are going to certify 1100 T/R modules (10,000MTBF), twice the range of slot array and much less cost. so the difference between Slot array and AESA equiped MIGs will not be more than $1m.
star49Hmmm.. I’d expect the an announcement soon re AESA and Typhoon, BTW Its not long before the first one is flying in a Typhoon.
The Typhoon Austria deal is helpfully broken down into ‘flyaway only’ price up to ‘Full system’ price, you just need to find a reference to a similar package from the US.(look at the US Foreign military sales announcements).
If the AESA/Non AESA price variation is bothering you, then add an appropriate amount to the Flyaway cost. (Note that the CAESAR upgrade is more expensive to purchase but its cheaper over the aircrafts lifetime due to longer MTBF and less maintainence), so if your comparing Total cost of ownership rather than flyaway then deduct an appropriate amount.
Cheers
U only answered one part of my question. couple of years back there was feature in Flight International about F-16E. where flyawy cost of F-16E was put at $65m vs $45m for F-16C. that is upfront difference. it does not include system or development cost. again u have amortize AESA development costs on airframes. ur building EF without AESA.
and second part of is timing of execution of contract. Austrian contract is 3 to 4 years old compared to Australlian contract. and In mean time this has happened to engine manufacture alones in world market.
The rise in prices on materials can make bankrupt “Salute”
Pricing on strategic materials in Russia demands state regulation – J.EliseevPricing on strategic materials demands state regulation, general director MMPP “Salute” Jury Yeliseyev has declared on March, 15th at conference on development of enterprises OPK.
“We can approach to 2008 at a zero level on profit and not live till that time, when us aktsionirujut. On materials – here that us will ruin the Rise in prices “, – Yeliseyev has declared.
It has given an example with engine AL-31F – the card of “Salute”. According to Yeliseyev when the big contract on this engine in 2001 consist, the price for materials made 3200 thousand dol, and in 2005 it has increased on 70 thousand dol.
Such jump of the prices for raw material and accessories is inadmissible, the director as does not allow to carry out orders without the loss considers. ” We became absolutely not competitive on engines “, – it speaks.
“Why in a home market nickel sell, how at the London stock exchange where, by the way, the prices kolebljutsja – that grow fall while in Russia they only creep upwards prompt rates? “, – the chapter of “Salute” is indignant.
“The economy should be operated even in market conditions. It is necessary to adjust the prices when there is such need. The state on that also exists to apply authority in similar cases. It is very important question which demands the immediate decision “, – J.Yeliseyev has emphasized.
With it general director Stupinskogo of metallurgical combine (SMK) Arthur Davidov who has informed, that only from 3-rd quarter 2006 till 1-st quarter 2007 the price for the alloys which are let out by the enterprise agrees, has increased on the average for 70 % because of a rise in prices on metals: nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, tungsten have increased at cost on 108 %.
As he said, decrease in own costs of combine with 33 up to 19 % ” has not rendered positive influence on the prices on our production “: the price for foundry alloys has risen on 70 %, on pokovki – on 40 %, on aluminium sheets for a covering of planes – on 13 %.
In all alloys which lets out SMK, nickel makes 50-80 % but only for one day with 14-th on 15th March its cost for ton has grown on 2 thousand dol – up to 47200 thousand dol. At the same time, the initial price declared avia-and dvigatelestroitelnym to factories in the third quarter 2006 when has started gosoboronzakaz, was 26000 thousand dol. In the first quarter of the last year nickel cost 14500 thousand dollars.
Reny, entering into structure of monocrystal alloys has grown for the same period with 1 million 800 thousand dol. For one ton up to 10 million dol for one ton. ” In structure of the cost price of final products OPK metals make 80 %. And at us about one today any impellent factory has not signed the specification. As they leave their this situation not clearly. Only nezavershenka, probably, them gains “.
In Davidov’s opinion, such situation cannot be kept in the further. ” I do not agree with Jury Yeliseyev: if the question will not be solved, we shall go bankrupt earlier “, – the head of the metallurgical enterprise has declared.
As is known, practically all metallurgical manufactures to Russia to those or otherwise (frequently with infringement of the legislation) send to a private property, therefore it is not clear, how the state can provide price control to raw material (in this case – metals). However without the decision of this question, all efforts on putting in order in sphere of pricing on end production OPK, are represented unpromising.
Source: news agency ” áÓ¼ß-TASS
star49Hmmm re the exorbitant cost, it is costly, but all fighter aircraft are!,
You really have to compare total cost of ownership or system price, here’s the figures from the Austrian deal.
Eurofighter costs:-
Flyaway cost of each Batch 2 Typhoon is :-
EUR 62,890,000The flyaway Cost of each Typhoon with a 9 year finance deal is :-
EUR 74,280,000The System Cost of each Typhoon without the 9 year finance deal, and including Logistics, Training, and Simulators is :-
EUR 92,610,000The System Cost of each Typhoon including the 9 year finance deal, and including Logistics, Training, and Simulators is :-
EUR 109,380,000This is for 18 Typhoon jets, compare this to whats been offered to Australia (24 Super Hornets for $4.7B USD), its cheaper!!.
but you have to compare apples with apples with any other deals you have in mind.
I think its competitively priced!
Cheers
First u are comparing price of Non Aesa fighter with Aesa fighter. and than both deals are signed or executed in different time frame. and there is long list of weopons with Australlian deal. we havent defined fully what system price includes. still EF price is $130m with yesterday technology.
star49Not only because of funds, but also because the RuAF did not feel that the MiG MFI or Su-47 would be “good” enough. But there is no need to further discuss this.
Not because of funds? Sukhoi received $6B from licensing to China/India. direct sales,Kits and spare parts are in addition to it. and that has huge influence on 2002 decision of awarding 5th generation fighter. It was beyond MIG financial capacity to finish the fighter.
To my understanding a new radar was developed (V005 or so). Maybe I’m wrong here. Of course it is likely that the radar was further developed over the time, but still you are unable to contribute anything meaningfull about the radar.
understanding based on what? and why contribution not meaningful. they are not going to put anything inferior relative to what is for export into there most expensive fighter program. so it should be more than Irbis.
120° off axis might well be +/- 60°. There is no claim about 120° to each side. Its unaccurate. The 40 km might be the maximum cinematical range, but that has nothing to do with the engagement envelope.
again ur own interpretation. it is 120 degree offbore sight. 40km i put to prove accuracy of first report.
Lol. So why has the Su-34 the hardening against ground fire if it never goes low level? You contradict you self. The Su-34 has about 3 t more fuel than a Su-30MKI so who wonders and what does it prove.
so why the missiles are mentioned? there must be something that bring down the missiles instead of directly hitting them. and to be precise. Su-34 has 2.5tons more fuel than Su-30 but has 50% more range and 7 tons more takeoff weight and bigger frontal area. it just proves efficiency of design. i have no doubt its radar is much better than MKI.
The discussion with you ends here, as you aren’t able to provide anything useful. You are speaking around direct questions and that’s a dead end.
where is direct question. when u dont understand strategy behind aircraft.
star49I believe it, if I see it. I’ve seen so many comments from Russian military and officials. Things such as the MiG MFI is as good as the F-22 and such a nonsense, so I don’t believe everything… If there is a serious source I may start to deal with it.
MIG-MFI got abondoned because of lack of funds in 90s. But it does not mean that the end resul would have been different if they continue funding. SU-34 is officially inducted into service and is part of state defence order untill 2015. They called 5th generation aviation complex.
Ah yes it is so much better and that is probably the reason why they abandoned the V004 and developed a new one. Sorry but there is not really something know neither about the V004 nor about the new radar. So how can someone judge about its performance? That’s simply nonsense. And I’m smiling about politicians speaking about capabilities of military weapons.
abondoned? the same firm has the radar. offcourse u improve with passage of time. It is not 1993.
120° might mean +/-60° here not +/-120°. I could imagine a lot of things too, but imagination is one thing reality another.
It is clearly written 120 degree off axis. no need to interpret otherwise. here is more confirmation of 40km range. they have already developed active seeker for R-73.
Russian Air Force getting upgraded Su-25SMs
KUBINKA, Moscow Region. Dec 28 (Interfax-AVN) – The upgraded Su-25SM attack aircraft is a 4+ generation aircraft, Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief Army General Vladimir Mikhailov said on Thursday.
“The modernization resulted in developing a 4+ generation aircraft, capable of discharging 3.5-fold more tasks than an ordinary Su-25,” Mikhailov said at a ceremony of handing over six upgraded Su-25s from the Sukhoi Aircraft Holding Company to the Russian Air Force.
The ceremony was held at the 121st Aircraft Repair Plant in Kubinka, outside Moscow.
For instance, he said that the upgraded aircraft could carry the R-73 medium-range missile, featuring a range of fire of up to 40 km
Of course there is a missile threat at low level, but the aircraft was cenceptually designed during the cold war. Low level penetration was “in” at that time and ground fire posed a high threat, so the cockpit received an armor. There is no prove of missile invulnerability.
do u think Russians are stuck in cold war concept. they dont know anything about high altitude long range benefits for aircraft and weopons.:rolleyes:
they cleary said 250km destruction against hardened targets. so they are not going to use it in low level close air support.
u have to go with latest announcements. they put now 4500km range on internal fuel and 7000km with one inflight refuelling. Su-30MK is limited to 5200KM with one inflight refuelling.
The bomber’s range reaches 4,500 km. But even that is not the limit. The Su-32 can be refuelled while airborne, from a tanker aircraft. The crew of the Su-32 are splendidly protected. A capsule made from 17-mm titanium armour protects them from the shrapnel of air defence missiles and the small-calibre rounds fired by anti-aircraft guns. In general, the cockpit of the Su-32 is laid out in a highly unusual way
star49It might be that a clean Su-34 has a lower RCS than a loaded Typhoon, but a combat aircraft without weapons is useless. So how low is the Su-34’s RCS when armed? Simply look at the airlift intakes, the engines compressor blades aren’t hidden and except the nose I can’t see any RCS reducing measures. So sorry but I doubt that the Su-34 is so difficult to detect and that its RCS is lower than that of the Typhoon.
russian hasnt said how they achieve low RCS. but they said they have achieved it. and it isnt depended on external weopons.
Rafales RBE2 was designed as a multimode PESA from the beginning to, but that says nothing about it’s capabilities. In fact the V004 proofed to be disappointing and the new radar is completly unknown. Saying it’s vastly superior to the BARS is pur speculation, if you ask me. Or do you have any reliable sources which really confirm this and any additional infos about the new radar.
so does Bars/Zhuk sereis were multimode. but they achieved those capabilities a decade later. V004 Russian objective was superior AtoG. which is hard to achieve without present day processing and software power. but surely it is much better than anything exported or displayed for export. Russian deputy primeminister has himself said that it one 1 Su-34 is better than 12 Su-27. and every thing is i posted is in this form. just search Su-34 under Star49;) . u will get the result.
You forget that the Su-34s current R-73 can’t be launched at targets behind and the off-boresight angle is limited with about +/-60°. The hit chance is lower as well and to miss shots and your are normally out of SRAAMs.
they had 120 capability since 1994. now just imagine current capability with all new technology and processing power. infact the newer version of R-73 coming in less than 3 years have 80km range. the age of WVR fight is coming to an end finally. And please read that whole thread from 2004. I predicted at that time that Airbus A-380 is white elephant. and it has proven now beyond doubt.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=36171&page=5&highlight=western+fighter
from JED online. April-2004
The earliest of the fifth-generation short-range AAMs was the Vympel R-73 (AA-11). Employed with an Urals Optical-Mechanical Plant helmet-mounted sight, it can be fired at targets up to 30 degrees off-axis, and can track them at twice that angle. It employs both thrust vectoring and canard surfaces for pitch and yaw control. A new export version is expected to combine a laser fuze (which is already on the Russian Air Force version) and 120-degree off-axis target acquisition capability. Maximum range is to be increased from 30 to 40 km, and reports suggest that the R-73 has potential for rear-hemisphere defence
That is dreaming. Maybe there are missile defeat things inside, but I doubt it is a guarantee to not be shot done by a missile. It might reduce the chance, but I doubt it can completly eliminate the entire missile threat. The hardening against guns is primarily for the cockpit and against 17 mm only. It is primarily a crew protection for low level operations not less not more.
so do u think there are no missile threat in low level? they put extra tons of weight against guns because they know it is missile proof.
star49Are those “DETECTION” or “TRACKING” ranges? If its tracking, then its absolutely amazing, russian Pesas like the Bars will likely fall short before something like this. And the Rafale with the RBE2 may as well just stay on the ground rather than engage a Tyfoon with such a radar. If its detection, it pretty much has something that none of the other well known slotted arrays have. Detection ranges (approximate)for other slotted arrays on fighter sized targets (3-5 sqm):
Zhuk M: 130km
RDY 2: 120km
EL 2032: 140km
ApG 68v9: 110kmRegards,
USS.
u are comparing different size Slot arrays. Captor is in 700mm class. the rest are in 600mm . Zhuk-M3 for In MIG-29K is 130KM for 3 sqm from 624mm. Zhuk-AESA is 575mm for not less than 130km range. for 700mm they will double the range figures.
RDY-2 has much more range than this. RC-400 has 80% tracking range of original RDY and it is 100KM. RDY-2 is 15% more than RDY. so RDY is around 140KM. Not bad for Radar made a decade before Captor. still there is nothing special about Typhoon.
star49I disagree. I believe the Raptor will have a significant edge over any Flanker derivative(BVR), I believe that the Eurocanards(with the exception of Gripen) would pose a significant edge over any Flanker derivative(BVR). I believe the Typhoon would pose a greater threat to the Raptor but the Raptor still retains in my opinion a noticable advantage in BVR, one I believe it will retain throughout its lifetime. I believe that the Raptor and Typhoon are both high performance fast jets, with similar flight performance;from what Ive heard on this side of the pond: the Raptor enjoys a slight advantage in the overall flight performance.
I also dont believe the dismissive attitude towards stealth on this side of the pond; that it suddenly looses its advantage with the employment of enemy awacs or if your wingman is flying at an angle off the nose of the Raptor, where perhaps its RCS is not as low as its frontal sector RCS. This for me is justified by the sensitivity of the issue, not even people like Jon Lake would be privy to that kind of information. But from reports from people like Dozer and so on, how the Raptor easily takes on 4->8 fast jets, accompanied by awacs without them seeing the Raptor. This makes me think that this dismissive nature towards stealth(on this side of the pond) is borne out of the fact that we cannot really afford it, therefore we have come up with more cost-effective ways in negating the Flanker threat. Only the yanks can afford their passive stealth(ie shaping and ram). Now, sure radars will advance as time goes by, eventually eating away at the significant stealth advantage that the Raptor enjoys and the advantage that makes it virtually unbeatable in BVR at this moment in time. But that eventually could take along time; a few decades perhaps, who knows, as its all relative to the Raptors level of RCS reduction which is classified. The reason I believe it will take along time to loose its advantage, is due to the confidence of the people who have designed, who have manufactured, who have bought and those that have used the aircraft.
ur theory is obsolete. According to Mikhail Pagsoyn. Su-34 is Missile Proof. and can destroy incoming missiles (which can have any meaning like destroying the electronics)
So u cant destroy it with missile. ur only hope is gun and there it has protection.
and than It can destroy hardened structures at 250KM range. So it means it has either very big warhead or high speed speed missiles. So it can directly go to airbase and destroy aircraft on ground. and more over. Russia is working on Project 810. 360 sec long range hypersonic missiles. so it will negate the supercrusie advantage. as bigger high speed missile does not need that extra energy of supercrusie.
star49You aren’t serious are you? The Su-34/32 was designed as a fighter bomber/strike aircraft. Though it has significant better air combat capabilities than previous aircraft of this kind such as the Su-24 or F-111 it is not a fighter as the Su-27 basic model. Of course the Su-34 would have better chances to win an aerial engagement at BVR than a Su-27P/S or similar, but it is not a fighter compareable to the Eurofighter or so. And because a side claimes such things without mentioning any reason why doesn’t mean it’s a fact. The “most powerful” LPI radar is in fact an unknown factor as it is the case with many of the Su-34’s avionics equipement. The original intended V004 was very disappointing in terms of performance, a new radar was developed but nothing is really known about this system whether it has LPI capabilities nor something else. The Su-34s RCS is reduced in comparison to the baseline Su-27 but suggesting it has a lower RCS than the Typhoon is ridiculous. The Su-34’s flight performance is inferior in nearly every area to that of the Su-27 too.
why it is ridiculous when Mikhail Simonov is comparing Su-34 RCS to modern cruise missile. now modern cruise missile RCS is upto debate.. but surely much smaller than laden EF.
and about Radar. Su-34 was the first attempt to create mutlifunctional phased array radar in early 90s. specifically for A-G modes.
Just think about MIG-31, SU-30MKI, F-22,F-15C(AESA), F-18E, Rafale. They all started with air to air modes. and now going into AtoG modes.
Just look at Bars or Irbis radar and than multiply there capabaility by several magnitudes. Infact according to Ruaf CinC. Su-34 does not even need a separate EW version.
and when u have high ofbore sigth missiles and powerful early warning system for head to tail. there is no point in comparing turn rates.
star49Complete nonsense! Why do you spout this garbage?
The range figure, if accurate, is with an array which could hold 1400 to 1500 T/R modules, but was only about 75% populated, & for tests where no attempt was made to examine the range limits of the antenna (from a statement by one of the people in charge of the tests, quoted on Mr. Martell-Meads excellent site). They didn’t think there was any point, as they didn’t have a fully-populated array. Better to concentrate on the functions that weren’t dependent on the number of elements, rather than wasting expensive flying time. 😀
I am sure with passage of time they will improve the range figures just like any other radar. it just point towards the stage of development.
The back end is fully operational, & was designed with AESA in mind. The manufacturers have considerable experience of AESA to draw on, having a range of AESA radars, including operational radars. They could design a new AESA radar from scratch & have it operational in less than a decade (as they’ve proved!), but you think it’ll take them that long to field one that’s almost there already. Bizarre.
so does every other slot array of previous decades like APG-68/73/Zhuk-ME/EL-2032. there is nothing special about Captor back end for AESA.
star491) Oh, really?
2) No, it had fewer than 1500 T/R modules in the test antenna which flew last year. The array might have been capable of holding that many, but it was only about 75% full. And who told you it was incapable of detecting anything over 120km?
there was report about 120km range with 1400 to 1500 T/R module. anyway it is 1 decade away from operational AESA. Even PAK-FA radar will be certified before that.
3) That’s “more than” 75 km, not “limited to”. They ain’t telling what the maximum is unless you’re seriously interested in buying.
the same is true for any radar manufacturer. u can see from that MIG-35 brochure. “Not less than 130-140KM”. true ranges are only revealed to those who pay for it.
star49The newer Su-35BM stands up well against the EF , But would still lack in not having supercruise ability.
Su-35 full capabilities are yet to be determined.
Even Su-34 with most powerful LPI radar and very generous fuel capacity for afterburner use and stealthy RCS is much better than EF.
http://www.napo.ru/eng/?id=11
In a close maneuvering combat, the Su-32 is capable of successfully fighting against any modern fighter, including the F-15, F/A-18, or Eurofighter-2000
The aircraft is equipped with a powerful automated ECM system which can be further upgraded. The system incorporates an electronic reconnaissance and active jamming station, an infrared radar intended to detect launch of missiles by an attacker by means of referring to their thermal radiation
star49Selex has AESA radars in production, & is selling them, e.g. the Seaspray 7500E which has been sold to the USCG for their C-130 SAR aircraft. It was recently reported that the Selex PicoSAR lightweight AESA ground mapping radar (with MTI, which has flown & been demonstrated to customers) is being integrated on the Italian Falco UAV. Euroradar flew an AESA array for Captor on a BAC-111 testbed a year ago. It was clear from what they said to the press at the time that they’d been bench testing it for a long time before that.
This isn’t something that’s sprung out of nowhere. Selex has all the necessary knowledge of AESA radars, has demonstrated it, & has a whole range of them on the market, with sales to top drawer customers. I’m not sure why you seem to think Euroradar is behind in testing ‘“in real life” all the new functionnality of an electronical array’.
CAESAR uses European T/R modules. I think they’re made at Ulm.
how long have been Green Pine, Phalcon, Erieye in operational service? and there fighter counterparts? and even Japanese Ship based. EF Aesa is atleast 10 years away from operational service. and i have doubt about its performance. there is report of only 120km range with 1500 T/R modules. Selex with 500 T/R are also limited to 75km
star491) Well there’s no arguing with brochure figures on radar range…..:rolleyes:
so? you have to go with what ever is publicly available.
2) A-G limited? Yes, I guess. In that it’s not a B-1B. Refresh my memory again as to how many Storm Shadows F-22 can carry? Or even F/A-18E/F
2,000-lb weapons are big enough.
F-22 isnt meant for A-G role yet. It is doing what it is suppose to do. how many Storm shadows EF can use with sufficient range. put extra tons of weopons into EF. there will be no Supercruise.
3) Not competitive? Austria paid €62 m per jet. The UK unit flyaway is down to less than £42 m. That’s rather cheaper than anyone has paid for an F-15E in recent years.
It is already $90m fly away with bigger production run
and those prices belong to year? and these are Non-AESA, Non TVC Jet prices.
star49It’s not the case that “the avioincs need some some serious improvement”, however. Development is still underway, and full integration of all the planned elements is yet to be achieved, and though Captor-M has proved much better than people dared expect, some users do require AESA, even with a radar performance penalty.
what is so special about captor range? . the same can be achieve with APG-68/Zhuk/RDY. the only difference i can see is one is 700mm and the rest are in 600mm class.
I don’t know whether Star is confused, but while Rafale has a narrow nose, Typhoon does not have “a smallish nose” and it will be able to accomodate more than 2000+ T/R modules. The heaviest weapons it can carry are 2,000-lb Paveways and the Storm Shadow cruise missile. More than enough for a swing-role tactical aeroplane.
2000 T/R modules? unless they are some new generation. but eventually other aircrafts will also get this new generation.
AtoG is fairly limited. It cannot carry heavier bunker busting bombs or club type supersonic crusie missiles. and it will need external fuel tanks to carry heavier payload to any meaningful distance.
The F-22 is faster than Typhoon, more agile in some areas of the envelope, and MUCH stealthier. It costs nearly twice as much, however, and the one area where Typhoon does have an edge, even over F-22 and F-35, is in its cockpit and MMI.
fly away cost of F-22 is twice? consider the production run. EF is simply not competitive in price range.
Sign In
