star49SO just because they said that modes werent added so in a way the capability is similar (because only block 1 software for the radar is their with others being added) it makes the radar less work ?? Cumon , if in 2000 LMA says the radar can see 70-80nm for 1m^2 target it isnt true in 2005 ? What utter BS is this .
how come they say similar capabilities in late 2005? It seems they are trying to achieve some thing in future.
So it wouldnt be too hard for you to point out to that one quote out of the supposed thousands that i have made now would it ??
Please conveniently ignore the quote i made about PESA still be useful tech for 20 more years . It wont fit into your scheme of things.
Thats when i convinced you that there is huge usage of PESA from SAM to Ships to aircraft than u change. otherwise your only with AESA.
But we cannot believe the RUSSIANS , just as we cannot believe the FOLKS building the F-16 block 60 when they say that APG-80 is 70-80 nm for 1 m^2 targets . We cannot believe anything on the IRBIS comming from the Russians . IF IT WAS SUCH A GOOD SYSTEM MORE WOULD BUY IT AND IT WOULD BE WAY BETTER THEN BARS . BUT IT IS SAME TO BARS PROBABLY NOT MUCH BETTER , MAYBE EVEN INFERIOR FOR NO ONE BUYS IT
Ur a bit little early to judge IRBIS as they are going to use similar technolgy on PAK-FA initially and there is PESA for Su-34/MIG-31. Certainly it is not a joke like F-16E customer.
star49No need , the NOSE is allready their . Again use FACT based ARGUMENT not stupid logic as WHY DONT YOU PUT RADAR AS A POD MOUNTED BLA BLA BLA BLA
FACT BASED EVIDENCE OF WHY A POD BASED IRST (permanent pod not weapons pylon) is any worst then NOSE mounted IRST in cases where they have equal size , power and performance spec.
WAITING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE .
Evidence pretty clear there is no POD mounted IRST on Su-30MKM. Superior, larger product is in the nos right where the radar is.
Are you privelaged to the sort of breifings the AF’s get ? I am not , so for us we can only rely on public information . And 70-80 nm range figures given by LMA are equal to any press release of any russian publication talking about BARS , IRBIS ir what not . If one is to be BELEIVED SO IS THE OTHER . One cannot believe one and not believe the other , it is called hypocrisy .
Russian publications have taken by pretty serious airforces not a joke like UAE.
Ofcourse , they want bigger better radar . I never said the Apg-80 is better to the Apg-63 v3 or v4 . Infact i POINTED TO SOURCE WHICH SAID THE 63 V3 AND V4 ARE THE LARGEST US AESA RADARS . Again putting words into my mouth ??
bad habbit
Smaller AESA does not work against larger PESA. simple logic and that is the whole arguement.
Again speculation , NG and raytheon are counting on that and are spending millions of their own money to have a product ready if need be . USAF F-16 modernization for Block 50/52’s isnt even planned , Once it is planned the scope and cost of upgrade will depend upon many things but mainly –
* Status of the F-35
* Cost of the F-35
* no.s of F-35’s to be procured
* Timeframe of delivery of F-35’sRemember the SABR is not a simple upgrade for Block 30 F-16’s but for block 50/52’s.
ur probably decade away from this to happen.
Never claimed it was 3 times that range .
so what is this than?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=80467&page=5
have clearly demonstrated that the radar range for the APG-80 is way superior to its predecessor (3 times) and in the league of the (80 nm for 1m^2) . This is 2000 tech AESA 1st gen. , The Apg-79 is 20-30% more T-R modules , more power and better packing .
Out of all the AF’s that have chosen the VIPER , none except the UAE were offered AESA .
so now it comes down that no one was offered AESA in viper but AESA was offered for F-15s.
star49why should MSA and PESA should have same range in similar time frame.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2004/06/01/182372/new-su-30mk3-flight-tested.html
The Su-30MK3 uses Phazotron-NIIR’s Zhuk-MSE multimode radar, which the company says can detect a fighter aircraft target at a maximum range of 200km (108nm), track 10 targets and engage four simultaneously. A radar-equipped aircraft has so far conducted 13 test flights with the Zhuk-MSE sensor, it says
star49It is similar size and weight , however interms of Detection ranges LMA claims it to be 70-80 nm for 1m^2 target , which IS MORE THEN ( more then in english means GREATER THEN = HIGHER UP IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE) then THE SLOTTED ARRAYS ON MOST US F-15’C’S WITH BIGH NOSE. 70-80 nm for 1m^2 target is BARS TERRITORY (roughly) not SLOTTED ARRAY TERRITORY . You can ofcourse make MSA’S THAT CAN DETECT AT THOSE DISTANCES BUT THEY WONT BE ABLE TO FIT (MOST LIKELY) ONTO F-16’S SMALL NOSE CONE.
as far as Apg-69V9 vs Apg-80 compariso
The Israeli Soufa F-16I, and Hellenic F-16 Block 52s are equipped with the latest version of Northrop Grumman APG-68 radar, the (V)9 multimode fire control radar that offers improved detection range and resolution. Only the Block 60 aircraft, destined for the UAE, are to be equipped with a more advanced version – the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.
The APG-68(V)9 offers 30 percent increase in detection range, improved search-while-track mode (four vs. two tracked targets) and larger search volume and improved track while scan performance. Its single target track performance has also been improved.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/apg68-v-9.htm
As Northrop Grumman commences delivery of production APG-80 radars for the F-16 Block 60 program, testing of additional software modes will continue into next year using test radars on board the company’s BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft in Baltimore. APG-80 radar deliveries are scheduled through late 2005 for the fleet of 80 F-16 Block 60 aircraft destined for the UAE.
Following formal radar acceptance tests, witnessed in Baltimore in mid-July by officials from Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 60 radar team, the radar was delivered to Lockheed Martin’s Aeronautics Company facility in Fort Worth, Texas, where it will be installed by the end of September in the first F-16 Block 60 aircraft. The first flight of the aircraft, as part of the ongoing Lockheed Martin-led weapons systems development effort, is scheduled for late November.
The APG-80 is designed to search continuously for and track multiple targets within the forward hemisphere of the aircraft. As a result of increased operational flexibility, pilots will be able to simultaneously perform air-to-air search-and-track, air-to-ground targeting and aircraft terrain-following.
“This new agile beam approach represents a quantum leap forward in advanced, multimode fire control radar systems and will provide pilots with vastly improved situational awareness,” Johnson added.
Additional advances of the APG-80 agile beam radar include much greater detection range, high-resolution synthetic aperture radar imagery, and a two-fold increase in reliability compared to conventional, mechanically scanned radars.
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=44083
That is what i have been saying all along too . US could not offer AESA to IDF given the time period involved for Block 50/52’s couldnt fit APg-80 and even if they offered something different their would be licence issues with UAE . Moreoever SABR wasnt even on the table in that timeframe (it has just now come up) . IDF had their own MSA planned and eventually had an AESA on the table for the future , however they werent allowed to put their own radar aboard the Vipers .
where does it say it has 3 times more range than APG-68(V9). there will be some improvement in range but most aiforces chose to ignore it.
star49Do you even remember what started the argument ?? Please go back and read in the original thread as to the original comments of yours that started the argument , then maybe you will realise.
i have clearly shown different kind of export customers.
Could be because of size of the IRST , however it would make no difference if the similar POD mounted IRST is used (Same size) on a permanent position in the belly . Please explain how it would make a difference in detection ranges (and detection ranges arent a be all end all ) and resolution if the same nose mounted IRST is placed on the belly .. And please provide PROPER EXPLAINATION OTHER THEN –
So size of IRST matters along with Nose position. why not put a radar in poded radar?
B) BECAUSE RUSSIA DID NOT USE POD MOUNTED A2A THEN IT MUST NOT BE GOOD AS COMPARED TO NOSE MOUNTED .
that is logical explaination as they have been in this business for far too long on consistent basis.
How can turks buy AESA when one is NOT AVAILABLE ? or would the turks go into the future and buy AESA and bring it back to the past ? AESA radar for the turkish birds hasnt even flown yet and we are 4 years into the future as compared to when the turks signed the deal . The Apg-80 is no good for the turks as they cannot PUT APG-80 ONTO BLOCK 50/52’S .
So do u think Turks cannot afford to fund AESA radar for its fleet of nearly 250 F-16s that they are going to use for next 30 years.? bu they can afford 100 AESA JSF with larger nose.
They didnot see logical reason for putting a small AESA. thats the whole issue. and it would be even make business sense for UAE to find more customers for the same radar.
FROM THIS WE CAN DEDUCE THAT –
A) LOCKHEED IS LIEING INTENTIONALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CAPABILITY OF THE APG-80
It seems no one is ordering so price capability advantage is not there.
B) USAF IS ALSO BLUFFING
they are surely not ordering it.
C) APG-80 PERFORMANCE IS FALSE AND IT HAS BEEN SOLD UNDER FALSE PROMISE AND THE UAE HAS BEEN DOOPED .
UAE would be last nation of making rational military choices.when they souped up Mirage-2000 standard & blow it away over Rafale price.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/06/17/167301/mirage-remains-key-part-of-product-line.html
The latest deliveries were to the United Arab Emirates, which is receiving 32 new Mirage 2000-9s, the model described by Philippe Pardessus, head of the Bader 21 programme, as “the highest performance, multirole oriented airplane in the Mirage 2000 family”, an aircraft that “will be similar to the latest-generation Rafale airplanes”. Thirty Mirage 2000-8s of the UAE air force are being converted to the same standard, 28 of them at Al Dhafra air base in the UAE, following two prototype conversions (one single-seater and one twin-sticker) which are being modified at Istres in France.
anyways , nice theory of yours but please provide evidence . I have shown that the range of APG-80 as quoted by the people making the F-16 is 7-80 nm for 1 m^2 target , this is far greater then MSA even on the F_15 . Please stop now with your nonsence about small nose etc etc unless you have evidence.
the aircraft that landed in UAE in late 2005 has similar capabilities as latest Block50+ thats according to flightglobal and newer information supercedes the prior information.
USING STARS LOGIC NO X-001 I AM NOW OF THE CONCLUSION THAT THE IRBIS RADAR DEVELOPED BY RUSSIA IS A USELESS PEICE OF $HIT AND OF NO USE AND GIVES NO FURTHER ADVANTAGE AS COMPARED TO THE BARS
It clearly has advantage over BARS as the Same Russians have said that Su-27SM is superior to any export flanker at that time. (2003) and Su-35 two step beyond Su-27SM.
NO I DONT CHANGE THE TUNE . I was never comparing AESA to PESA , i was reffering to APG-80 being better then MSA APg-69 something that LMA allerady claims . I also showed that the APG-80 is equal to BARS interms of range figures .
And no serious airforce is going to take that claim seriously. It might be marginally better but certainly not 3 times better than newer slot array radar. Even newer Gripen Slotarray is close 160KM for fighter size and that is smaller than F-16. and it is not equal to BARS.
YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD BE SO MUCH SIMPLER AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY FELLOW MEMBERS IF YOU COULD SIMPLY POINT OUT IN MY REPLY WHERE I SAID PESA WAS NOT GOOD , OR ITS TIME WAS DONE , OR WHATEVER YOU WERE IMPLYING .
Everywhere you are implying the same thing by constantly referring to AESA future usage.
They still might but then again they might not , its their own descision and we have no evidence (unless you present any) that gives reason why they didnt Ask for AESA in RFP , their is allready an article i provided which says that if they might buy more F_15K’s they could upgrade to AESA given the cost involved . Singapore has ordered AESA but that doesnt count now does it ? Nor does the RAAF , nor does the USAF which is looking to put AESA on its F-15E fleet and On its ANG F-15 fleet . For you just one user going for Non-Aesa is all it takes to bash AESA even when for every one their are multiple users going in for AESA.
Singpore is facing BARS equiped Flanker so they are not putting AESA into F-16 to produce similar capability. they have to radar on bigger fighter. I highly doubt AESA is going to be used on F-16 retrofits of USAF.
star49Cont. from the chinese pirated…thread ..
glad that you started new thread.
You never talked about TOT , simply talked about EXPORT . Please refer to the original quote of yours where you said TOT was an issue .[/quote]
I clearly talked about TOT when i mentioned strong vs weak nations. How Strong nations want full control over weopons stytems along with building it for themselves. This force Russians developer to develop far superior product than what is offered for export.
Are you infering that a POD mounted FLIR or IRST is going to be different in capability to a Nose mounted one ? Something about the Position on the nose that automatically makes the IRST more capable ? I guess even the F-35 will suffer and so will the F-18E/F since they do not have NOSE mounted because their exists a sweet spot on the NOSE that increases IRST ranges by 10 folds isnt it ???
Please explain your logic as to why the same IRST if mounted in the belly will be different to if mounted on the NOSE .!!
Why do u think IRST on Flanker is more capable than Fulcurm? and they are not going to use pod mounted for air to air.
UAE demanded it , but they have customized version , AESA till date is not available on BLOCK 50 F-16’s HOW hard is this simple fact to understand ? If someone wants AESA on F-16 , they would have to develop a new custom varient much like UAE did and for purchases of 20 , 30 or even 40 aircrafts that is not going to be economical . For MMRCA contract for example for 100 + aircraft it would be good and LMA have pitched in a IAF specific Block 70 aircraft which carries the Apg-80 licenced from UAE along with other components .
why would someone chose this radar when it essentailly the same capability like slot array of perhaps smaller size and weight.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/11/22/203125/lockheed-takes-uae-f-16ef-development-to-next-level.html
Deliveries to the UAE under the $6.4 billion, 80-aircaft order began in May with Standard 1, which provides essentially the same capabilities as the Block 50+ F-16C/D. Standard 2 adds capability, including the internal forward-looking infrared and targeting system, integrated electronic warfare system, additional modes for the APG-80 active-array radar and automated modes for the digital flight control system.
PLEASE ALSO CLARIFY – DO YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE ONLY 80 OR SO ORDERS FOR THE APG-80 HAS BEEN SO FAR MATERIALIZED THAT IT IS NOT MUCH SUPERIOR TO THE 69V9 ? EVEN THOUGH THE MANUF. (NOT THE MANUF OF THE RADAR BUT THE FIGHTER) SAYS THAT THEY GET 3 TIMES MORE RANGE NOW AND THEIR RANGE FIGURES FOR 1M^2 TARGETS ARE GREATER THEN THE BIGGEST MSA RADAR IN US FIGHTERS??
CAN WE USE THE SAME LOGIC ON THE IRBIS WHICH HAS ZERO ORDERS AS COMPARED TO THE BARS?? (zero is far less then 80)
where is statement of three times more range than block50+. Maybe three times more range than 20 year old block 52 of USAF but certianly not the newr F-16s. u havent provided any statement that AESA F-16 is more expensive than Advance block52+.
Like i said in the past . IDF NEVER WANTED A US RADAR , they wanted their own developmental radars to be feilded and they also have AESA tech for F-16’s sized aircraft . MOREOVER they really had no option for the APg-80 for obvious reasons . Is this really hard to understand ??? Please some other member rephrase this so that star can understand this more clearly..
ur mixing time linese. IDF didnot have AESA for F-16 size untill this point let alone when they ordered F-16s and AESA isnot issue. perhaps full capability for slotarray along with local weopons.
TURKEY placed order for Block 50 in 2004 , Block 50 cannot get the Apg-80 as their is avionics suite difference , and computer difference (Fibre optic etc etc) . The SABR as a concept has just been unveiled in 2008 Feb. , it will fly later and might be fully tested and ready to be offered in 2009-2010 timeframe , That is 6 years after the Turkish order was placed . GET MY POINT OR DO YOU NEED FURTHER SIMPLIFICATION FOR THIS ???
The amount of money turks spent on F-16s and the size of fleet is far more than what UAE spent. they can certainl afford AESA for F-16 but not interested in marginal capability of small nose. and they are facing RDY-2 equp Mirages and APG-68V9 F-16s. No point in going down the same path.
PLEASE READ THE PARA QUOTED BEFORE REPLYING TO IT , AND AFTER YOU REPLY RE-READ WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND SEE IF IT MAKES ANY SENCE WHEN COMPARED TO THE PARA YOU HAVE QUOTED . Conversation would be so much more plesant that way.
OH YEAH I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO POINT OUT TO THE EXACT QUOTE OF MINE WHERE I SAID PESA WAS DEAD , PLEASE DO SO .
u said AESA provides superior capability but since i contridict that newer PESA is lighter and much superior to AESA u change the tune.
Please provide Evidence that SK only looked at BOMB HAULING CAPABILITY and not total A2A and A2G package as most WISE forces would look @ from their premium multi role fighter.
they would be ordering AESA equiped F-15C not the heavier F-15K.
US needend give source codes , they still sell plently of Defence tech even without that.
Alot of it is dicounted FMS sales. and some of it is to countire that u have to proctect anyway so sales doesnot mean anything.
which is not like commercial driven French/Russian policy. French have provided equipment to nearly all 300 Su-30MKI/MKA/MKM.
star49Your 460M PESA isnt comparable radar beacuse we are comparing APG-80 against BARS , This isnt a D%^& waiving competition of who can produce lighter and smaller . DO YOU EVEN REMEMBER WHAT STARTED THIS ARGUMENT, and how much you have side stepped ? THIS IS UTTER MIS-DIRECTION . Also do you realize that if you work out the MATH behind all this you will realize that for a 3 m^2 target the AN/APG-80 will have detection ranges close to 200Km + ? (120+km for 1m^2 target according to LMA) , This is BARS teritory . Your Mig 29 PESA does not specify what RCS it uses for 120 Km range .
And BARS is exported with deep License in 90s. No country give export license to top end stuff. US wont even give source codes for Export AESA let alone TOT untill this point. Thats why i put example of much better PESA tech with OSA. u dont get this point untill now.
It is all about Size vs capability. PESA is suitable from small to large fighter and will remain so for next decade. It was Russia that didnot provide high end PESA technology to China/Iran othewise u would have seen several thousands PESA clones by now. thats the reason Chinese are pursuing AESA tech as PESA is hopless.
Dont know what the LITENING’s range or watever is but this is besides the point . I merely CORRECTED you when you said the F-16 has no IRST , clearly it does have a common IRST and FLIR mounted on the nose and the belly (the little sensor you see on the nose isnt the only sensor but their is a belly mounted traditional looking LITENING sensor aswell ) . You again resort to D$%^ waiving and claiming one is better then the other , the argument was never what is better then the other . The size of the NOSE BASED sensor is of no use as the NOSE BASED IR sensor is primarily for I-R GUIDED NAVIGATION etc , for targetting the big sensor in the belly which is the NG sensor ———–>
Just look what Thales pod is on MKM and why they didnt want IRST with that? Big Speciallized IRST at right place has its own advantages. Strong countries can pick and chose.
Pretty cool ! Although i havent seen the entire deal (Either one) on contract and what was contracted for , i believe that UAE also signs maintaince contracts as part of purchase agreement and also buys heavy weaponry along with the aircraft (as part of the same deal) . I think UAE bought billions worth of weapons lik,e AMRAAM , JSOW etc etc when the purchased the Block 60 , probably similar when they bought from the french .
UAE also bought more than $2B worth of French weopons at that time. Both deals are very similar in price per unit. Nothing expensive about F-16E.
They arent even on offer yet , LMA is not offering SABR to any one interested yet . MAYBE BECAUSE IT IS STILL A CONCEPT AND IS INTERNAL NG PROJECT WHICH HASNT EVEN FLOWN YET . SABR is essentialy APG-80 but with newer T-R modules , same back end as -69 and minus the components specifically researched with UAE money . Basically ONCE IT IS READY AND FLOWN BY NG , TESTED AND APPROVED FOR OFFER (Yes they would have to seek DOD approval) THEY WILL GET LMA TO ENDORSE IT FOR NEW F-16’S but so far only radar (AESA) that LMA is willing to endorse is the APG-80 because it is operational and completely integrated , so any 1 who wants it has to licence it from the UAE .
If it was so much better than APG-68(V9) customers would be demanding for long time. It is customer driven environment.
The SABR is not retrofitable onto anything less then BLOCK 50/52 withouth significant upgrades , it is designed to be plug and play for block 50/52’s as the MLU cycle of Block 50/52’s is quite some time away (they are still young birds) NG has a few years to test the metal of this radar and get it ready and start marketing it . It just got revealed in FEB. and wasnt even in the public domain in the period before that . I see no BLOCK 50/52 user wanting to upgrade his birds yet so no scope for SABR immediately unless it is for NEW birds , but eventually those block 50/52’s sold worldwide and to the USAF would need an upgrade and LMA has made it clear that they will go to raytheon if need be (if the customer likes raytheon’s product better) so NG is positioning themselves for this market for the future .
I believe there is new Greek/Turkish and IDF order is half complete. So plenty of F-16s operator but none is willing to jump on it.
Never said that their wasnt life left in PESA for next 20 years for that matter . Please POINT OUT TO MY QUOTE WHERE I SAID PESA IS ALL DEAD??
by constantly putting only AESA articles. u only infers that AESA is the only wayforward but i mentioned there is still one decade to go before AESA overhelms PESA that is based produced in Russia.
You are looking @ only bomb halling capability , not at A2A , SK’s premium fighter would be the F-15E so for them it need be great A2a ASSETt aswell .
well they bought the aircraft for bomb hauling ability. There isnothing preventig them from upgrading F-16s. and F-15 i believe even have crashed so no safety even for twin engine fighter considering the small order.
THIS IS THE LAST REPLY I HAVE MADE IN THIS THREAD , FOR FURTHER TALK YOU CAN START A NEW THREAD . the original talk was about “US NOT EXPORTING RADARS @ THE SAME TECHNOLOGY LEVEL AS BARS . ” I have proved that to be wrong , the members can judge for themselves . I refuse to get into an infinite argument and SIDE STEPPING , mis-direction act of yours which leads to stupid questions after another and PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH . Such is clear from the Debate we have had here , and it should be clear to those who have read what has transpired
GOOD DAY!
US certianly didnot give sources codes and licenses when BARS were exported. and i doubt US will give source codes or license for radar comparable to IRBIS.
star49BS. The Soviet Union does not acknowledge even the sheer concept of a license which mean intellectual property ownership, because the concept of ownership does not exist in the Soviet Union. The SU ripped off Western designs at will, such as the Tu-4 from the B-29 and the Atoll from the Sidewinder. So if Russia tries to claim fees from every AK-47 made, perhaps the US should claim fees from every Atoll ever made.
does anyone gives license fees to German work? there is big difference between war trophies, and willingingly giving licenses to countries that will pursue similar idealogy since they have abondoned that ideology there no longer allowed to profit or gain employment from such intellectual property. and Russia is going to impose this point across. It is just matter of time when in next 3 to 5 years Russia becomes economic Superpower with all control of World natural resources,Scientific powr, water,Food supply, transport routes, pipelines, and most wealthiest consumers it will economically along with natural resource grouping of countires it will punish those countries that do not fall inline like banning beef imports or cars does not pass safety test.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99c75db4-16c9-11dd-bbfc-0000779fd2ac.html
Insight: Russian grain could help ease food crisis
Russia can raise issue of intellectual property in armaments at Russia-NATO Council session
BRUSSELS. April 30 (Interfax-AVN) – Russian envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said he intended to raise the issue of intellectual property in the area of weapons.
This issue directly concerns Russian interests, Rogozin told Interfax-AVN. “Despite the fact that many countries that recently joined NATO had licenses for production of Soviet and Russian weapons that expired long ago, they still produce these weapons,” he said.
“This fact cannot fail to call for our extreme concern, because Russia positions itself as a responsible and disciplined participant of international agreements in the protection of the copyright and fight against counterfeit production,” he said.
star49They arent saying anything . They said 70-80 Nm for 1 m^2 target , remember use the FORMULA to put all figures in prespective so they can be compared . For 3m^2 target the APg-80 will see much further then 70-80 nm , similarly a 200-250 km range for 3 m^2 target wont be so much for 1m^2 target .
I have asked what is weigth and size of radar. I gave example of 120kg and 460MM PESA radar from 2004. so in small size AESA does not have range advantage. no wonder F-16 is so heavy.
INTERNAL FORWARD LOOKING INFRA RED Targeting system can be used both as a traditional IRST (For Air-air detection) or for a traditional FLIR targeting system for A2G targetting . This according to manufacterer not ME . F-35 will have similar (IRST+FLIR combo) and it would be known as EOTS (Electro optical targeting system) , just because it isnt abbreviated as IRST it doesnt mean it is different in concept , technology and/or function . EOTS will be very similar to NG IFTS but with the Lockeed produced targeting pod instead of the NG produced as the base (SNIPER instead of the LITENING) . Both EOTS and IFTS are able to perform A2A search , tracking and have resolutions for effective targetting , ofcourse they are fully functional FLIR targetting pods aswell for A2G ops for which they will most likely be used more . Not all IFTS is nose mounted , originally they wanted to do it so but weight saving measures incorporated on the overall IFTS didnt materialize and they would have had to redesign the entire concept if they wanted to have total nose integration so chose to have some components in the nose wile others were located in a fixed setting under the belly IIRC .
These things takes alot of space. Not suitable for small fighter so performance figures are given. Su-35 figures are no less than 50KM in frontal and no less than 90KM in the back.
What if they dont want technology transfer ? What if they only want capable fighters ? Not everyone is interested in TOT . Most fighter sales worldwide are without TOT .
Everyone is interested but they just dont have technical base. they accept what is provided.
For integration for one , F-16 block 60 is a very expensive aircraft , took 3 billion to develop on UAE part moreoever you cannot put APG-80 on Block 50/52 aircraft without changing avionics and other complex and costly changes . Moreoever APG-80 and avionics components need to be licenced from UAE as they own rights and want 3-4 million dollars as royalty per fighter . Furthermore Block 50/52 seems to be good enough for most nations .
Acutally F-16E is cheaper than M2K deal which UAE signed at similar time frame. and that does involve any development.
Lockheed martin have only now heard that Northrop are working on a new PLUG AND PLAY AESA in the SABR , when that thing flies i am sure LMA will offer it onto new f-16 but that is still some time away from completion . APG-80 cannot go on F-16 block 50./52 , and block 60 is a UAE owned aircraft and LMA cannot offer it without royalties being paid to UAE for their 3 billion in develoment funding .
No one is accepting those AESA no matter how low the price for upgradation.
And as far as Wanting AESA , India is requesting AESA (or AESA upgrade) on MMRCA aswell IIRC , Singapore , Australia have chosen AESA as part of their aircrafts (And these are forces which will face high flanker threat) . AESA has been chosen for 737AEW – Australia , turkey , south korea , USAF has chosen AESA for every fighter project for 5th generation , For M2RCA , USN for its 4.5 gen fighter , BAMS , and E-2D aircrafts . J-UCAS now restructed as UCAS-D will have AESA . The russians seem to be offering AESA on Mig-35 , Are going to get AESA for PAKFA . Clearly the AESA is considered unanimously as the future .
India has requested TOT for AESA that is complete separate issue as they want to build there own industry with this deal as they already got license for PESA. and PESA has been chosen for 300 export Su-30s, upto 70 Su-34 all MIG-31 upgrades, S-300/400 upgrades and export models. A-50 and not the least Su-35 etc. So there is plenty of life left in PESA tech for next 10 years alteast.
But if you only want 50 , and can afford both 50 F-15Es (Affordability as per aquisition and maintaince) and 50 F-16E’s then which one will one choose ? Also remember the chosen aircraft will also have to function as your premium A2A assett , their arent F-15C’s to fall back on for A2A stuff.
I am sure every airforce will look at fuel cost for training and capability. with 80 F-16 u can potentially carry 500 tons of strike load versus 300 tons with F-15E to similar distances.
star49They aint going to say much more then a breif range , the rest will remain classified. they said 70-80 nm , even if we use 70nm as the upper limit it is very competitive to the BARS for its size .
why they saying F-16E is comparable to OSA upgrade. 120KM was achieved from 460MM.
Author: Vladimir Ilyin
Source: Aerokosmicheskoye Obozrenie, No. 2, 2004, pp. 42, 43[The N029 radar aiming system (better known as Osa) is the world’s first phased-array radar system suitable for mounting on light airplanes. The system with weight of just 120 kilograms and volume of 150 cubic decimeters can track up to eight targets simultaneously and support firing of missiles with radar homing warheads at four of them.]
<> OSA STARTED HUMMING
(…) The N029 radar aiming system (better known as Osa) is the world’s first phased-array radar system suitable for mounting on light airplanes. The system with weight of just 120 kilograms and volume of 150 cubic decimeters can track up to eight targets simultaneously and support firing of missiles with radar homing warheads at four of them. The system can work not only with air targets but also with ground and sea targets. So far the Osa is the lightest and most compact radar possessing the highest efficiency in its class. (…)
Work on integration of the Osa into the MiG-29BT double-seat multifunctional fighter, a modernized version of the MiG-29UB combat-training airplane, has been restarted. (…) After the modernization the MiG turns from a combat-training airplane capable only of close-range maneuverable air battle in simple weather conditions at direct visibility distance into a powerful multifunctional fighter capable of long-range missile warfare and elimination of ground targets regardless of the time of the day and weather. Besides equipment with the new radar all avionics of the airplane are also replaced. (…)
A number of technical solutions of the N029 allow detection of air targets of fighter class at a distance of 120 kilometers even with the present antenna with diameter of 460 millimeters. Use of antenna with an increased aperture will increase the target detection range to 150-160 kilometers. Thus, according to this important parameter the Osa will be superior to the newest American counterpart with an active phased-array being developed for the F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon 4++ generation fighter by Northrop Grumman. The American system detects a target of fighter class at a distance of 140-150 kilometers. (…)
The Yak-130 combat-training airplane will also carry the Osa. The Yak-130 is intended for deepened training of military pilots and for use as an attack airplane in local conflicts.
Designers of the Osa plan to unite two radars of various bandwidths within one radar system. For this purpose they will place compact active phased-array radar under the main phased-array radar and will integrate the other elements of the radar system to the maximum extent. As a result it will be quite realistic to create a compact and relatively inexpensive system representing actually two radars at a price and volume corresponding to 1.3 times that of the initial Osa. (…)
The miniature and inexpensive Osa possessing high technical and economic characteristics fits the needs of a number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) very well.
(…)
Naturally, mounting on UAVs will require an insignificant modernization of the Osa. For example, there is a possibility to further reduce the weight and dimensions of the radar system
again your FLIP FLOPPING TACTICS are in full view , where in the heck did i ever say the F_16 block 60 was better or worst then a Mig-35?? Where did i say that they were going head to head ? OR ARE YOU GOING TO MISDIRECT THIS THREAD AGAIN AND ARE GETTING BORED OF REVERTING BACK TO THE ” RENOGIATING OLD TREATIES” ARGUMENT and are looking for something different ?
it takes space in front.
BTW – the F-16 block 60 and IRST..hmmmm …..
is IRST?
So you believe that LMA can lie to UAE and Australia and get away with it by forging up radar numbers etc etc but if they offered to india or china they will be caught . YET AGAIN A HEAP OF RUBBISH . Like I said before you can either believe or not believe the LMA rough figures , that is your wish but spare us such BS that has made you quite famous (Evidently from rhyme’s post) .
UAE/Australia does not have industrial base to make kind of comparision and technology transfer. there is plenty of industrial examples.
Both Boeing and LMA could deliver an AESA with their fighters if the SK’s wanted . Both had delivered Funtional/operational radars by 2004 on both the platforms concerned .
So why no one wants AESA as u claim it is cheaper, have lower long term maintaince costs etc.
Not really the same , the F-15E’s are kitted for more serious work of going low etc etc , they are better power projection asset plus if you are only buying one it is better to go for a 2 engined fighter with a better A2A performance for future , the Block 60’s wing loading is dismal . Moreoever they have Better prospect of upgrading the F-15E’s as USAF is looking to put AESA radars and SDB on the F-15E’s but arent looking to go for serious Block 60 like upgrades for F-16’s because the F-35’s will be mass produced yet the F-15E will remain unique in capability .
what is mean serious work? both can do same weopons to same distance at identical speeds. F-16 u can generate more sorties and cheaper training will become a factor. It is better to have 80 F-16 AESA than 40 F-15.
star49Same with the USAF . Even LMA officals were very clear “although exact figures are classified but 80nm ..” None wants to disclose full capability of latest technology for obvious reasons . It aint much different in the US then it is in russia .
80Nm is upper limit or lower limit?
Thats only 100 more modules , not a big deal . Moreoever look @ the timeframes and technology used . If Apg-80 is to be compared to modern US AESA tech then it is previous generation AESA (1st gen aesa like older Apg-77’s (first 50 batches) with bigger , heavier more expensive modules (As compared to today). If someone was to order block 70 F-16 , NG would most probably use the more modern modules they are currently manufactering/using for the modern Apg-77’s and Apg-81’s .
MIG-35 got IRST also. where u going to put IRST in small nose fighter. Malaysia now upgrading MIG-29 IRST.
So if they were dealing with that sort of customer that “RUSSIA WAS DEALING ” with then the radar ranges they are saying will almost REDUCE ? WHAT A HEAP OF RUBBISH. EITHER YOU BELIEVE LMA’S RADAR CLAIMS OR DONT , BUT THIS IS PURE BS.
transfer of technology, sources codes. that require very high level of tecnical confidence and demonstrating each and every part from inside.
I believe both were operational in those timeframes when they were being evaluated . Moreoever since SK werent seeking AESA as part of the RFP both the rafale and typhoon were flying in the same configuration in which they were offered to them .
world does not run on beleives. Boeing has fuly developed product with service history and weopons certification.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-fms.htm
In October 2000 the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) and The Boeing Company began flight evaluations of the F-15E Strike Eagle.
SK didnt have AESA as RFP (For reasons unknown) . Even the F-15 offered to them was later without AESA , they may go for AESA if they order 60 additional as the article i posted suggests but even they didnt go for the AESA version of the 63 maybe due to cost .
Hardly cost is the reason. It was the time frame.
F-15E is a way better platform in terms of heavy bomb trucking and much better in the A2A arena in dedicated A2A role aswell due to better performance in many ways . If i was buying just one single fighter then I’d go for the F-15E even though it is more expensive to maintain (almost 40% more then F-16 block 50/52) .
F-15E internally can only take 6 tons of fuel. everything else is external.
Clearly by going for the expensive platforms they wanted 2 engine fighters (given the competition) , the F-15E is better @ A2A due to its performance and when it gets AESA (if they want in the future) the AESA on the F-15E is going to be around 50% bigger so better for A2A then even F-16 AESA (According to USAF sources in my article , which said that 63V3.4 is the largest AESA in USAF service) .
F-15 is better in air to air but if the purpose is strike like F-15E so F-16 can do the same.
Their isnt an AESA radar offered to the IDF for the F-16 by any manufacterer. The Apg-80 was out of bounds for them for obvious reasons and they didnt even evaluate it (Reasons should be clear) . IDF fought tooth and nail for their own radar , they didnt want even the -69 as they have their own tech radar in development (Yes also AESA is in development for them for F-16’s sizes) and wanted to use that but it was the US CONGRESS AND SENATE THAT FORCED THEM TO GO FOR US RADAR . Since they werent offered any AESA (as none was available ) they couldnt really do anything about it . Maybe when NG starts marketing SABR (once it is tested) IDF would be a potential candiate however i see them in the future using their own radar sets on the vipers .
so it just show the type of customer who does not have choice. It is not India/China/Malaysia who do multivendor competition or self development.
So LPI capability is useless to have ??
LPI capability is useless for legacy jet when it is facing much powrful radars and IRST. Its own rcs and external weopons will show its presence way before any radar waves.
star49btw, I know the latest Algerian MiG-29Ks and Venezuelan Su-30MKVs have corroded parts in them, but is it MiG/Sukhoi’s fault or rather Rosobonextport?
its also disappointing BAe would also do this.
the only new built MIG-29s are IN MIG-29K. every one else got refurbished.
BA performance is even worse than Soviets MIG-29. Su-30MKV atleast fly and no crash is reported during first year.
star49Ok , so Russians give pessimistic figures for their radars whiles the yanks are optimistic ? Even US radar’s figures are classified and estimates are likely to be on the lower side given they dont want to disclose full capability . It is the same everywhere.
ur putting ur own interpretation. Russians does not give figures .they just say “No less than” certain number. exact limit is not mentioned.
The APG-80’s technology aswell has been bettered over the years , New mods are twin pack , lighter , need less cooling and more can be packed in the same space . They are cheaper to produce , last longer etc etc . We are currently at 3 incarnation of the T-R modules in US AESA radars since first ones started to fly with the initial APg-77’s , 63’s and 80’s .
if they are lighter and cheaper there will be much more than 1000 modules. As MIG-35 can crammed 1100 modules.
I wont call australia weak country as apposed to malaysia ?? And is USAF also weak for favouring AESA on NG aircrafts such as ATF and JSF ? and wanting to upgrade its F-15E fleets ? and F-15C fleets with AESA ?
did Australlia independently evalaluated any other fighter before making a decision?
So you want to believe that LMA officials are lying and you want us to beleive Russian figures ? Why cant they lie aswell ??
they are not lying. they havent deal with kind of customers that Russia is dealing.
What choices countries make are almost never solely upon capability . RADAR choice wasnt the sole factor in deciding aircrafts to aquire . If SK chose F-15 without AESA would that also mean that F-15E without AESA is better then rafale , typhoon and even the sukhoi ? (i think sukhoi offered something IIRC)
Rafale/Typhoon were never that much developed in time frame when they were doing evaluation. They had a choice of F-16 AESA but they didnot exercise it as they dont believed in AESA ability to match bigger size radar.
F-15E is a different beast , that is why USAF uses F-15E’s aswell as 2 seater F-16’s . If they were the same their wont be any need to operate 2 types
F-15E came much earlier than advance block 52. F-16 will give them saving in gas with same radar capability (if ur AESA is believed)and weopons. Now it has 600gallons ET, CFT, IFR etc.
IDF could not go for APG-80 (for obvious reasons) however IDF was pushing all along for its own radar and wanted control over the radar so that they could put future radars of their’s into the Viper (including the AESA) .
when IDF is going for JSF AESA so why not F-16 AESA. otherwise fleet will get older.
Because at huge distances LPI can make a difference , also Agile beam radars allow other tactical beneifits to use the LPI modes and other goodies to great benefits . One side you guys talk about RCS reduction features on flankers but then LPI is useless .. please decide which one is which …..
huge distance?. So all those AWACS/Ground based digital phased array radar can see and track at hundreds of kms. No point in LPI for legacy fighter. Flanker rcs reduction? is never mentioned in the same length as its IRBIS radar, IRST, 3D TVC,11.5tons fuel etc.
star49Wont be replying to the rest of the BS you posted , HOWEVER PLEASE POINT TO WHERE I SAID YOUR EVIDENCE WAS FROM LESS CREDIBLE MEDIA ? STOP TROLLING MAN !!! WHAT I SAID WAS THAT YOUR CLAIMS THAT –
I think we should another thread instead of putting everythin on Chinses Flanker
A) SMALL AESA’S WONT WORK ON SMALL JETS – REFUTED BY LMA CLAIMS THAT IT CAN GET (AW MAG) SU-30MKI LIKE DETECTION RANGES FROM ITS RADAR
SU-30MKI official ranges have never been revealed but it is way more than what is reported. the only thing is it acquired Su-27 class target at 330KM.(15sqm) but that was 8 to 10 years ago.
B) SMALL RADARS WONT FIND EXPORT – AGAIN REFUTED BY UAE PURCHASING FOLLOWED BY RAAF PURCHASING
i already mentioned that are weak countries.
C) APG-80 CANNOT TOUCH BARS AND IS INFERIOR TO BARS – REFUTED BY NUMBERS FOR DETECTION RANGES , and we wont even take into account freq. hopping , multiple modes simeltaniously etc etc etc
If APG-80 was any where close to BARS. Singapore would have chosen AESA F-16 along with South Korea. With CFT it is as much as bomb truck as F-15E. The same logic applies to F-16I. and why u need LPI feature for non-stealth fighter? it can easily be detected by modern ground based radar or IRST.
star49Ah good! Very good. And my dear distinguished member star49, who on earth is denying the power of the IRBIS? :confused: Did I deny it? NO! Like I said its a beast! Did bring_it_on deny? Not to my knowledge. 🙂
The point was NOT about IRBIS Vs AN/APG-80! Remember which RADARs were taken into question? What caused the initial debate?
As for performance and size of the nose cone? Off-course. Ever seen the size of the F-22 nose or worse the YF-23? The reason I took IRBIS figures is because on paper it seems to be the most powerful fighter-borne RADAR on earth. The data about AN/APG-77 is classified and only speculations available. So did not add it.
This is NOT about the IRBIS! Remember which RADAR you compared to initially when arguing about export RADARs? Bars has a diameter of 960 mm!!
IRBIS is lighter and smaller than Bars. It is certainly not a beast interms of weight and size.
Sign In
