uss noviceCommanderJB, actually given a Russian fighter and a US (or western) fighter of the same weight class, the Russian fighter usually has inferior specs.
As another example, the Su-30 MKI weighs a “good” 4 tons more than the F-15 Strike Eagle, when both are empty. It is also longer and taller than the latter. However, the F-15 SE carries 4 tons more external payload than the Su-30, though internal fuel is around 1.5 tons lesser. Still, the overall load carried is 2.5 tons more, despite being smaller and weighing nearly 4 tons lesser.
Also, the F-15 SE is known to perform full 9G maneouevers upon full load, just like the Su-30.Were the Su-30 to try to achieve the specs of F-15 SE, it’s size would have to be “bloated” even further to the level of a mini-bomber.
Could you please post some sources and comparisons between the two a/c?
The same is the case with the MiG-35 — it’s size and weight are massive, nearly that of F-15, but it really falls short of the ‘nimbler’ Rafales and Typhoons; these can carry upto 9.5 tons of external payload on 14 hardpoints each, compared to just 6 tons on 9 hardpoints on the MiG-35. About range, we may assume it to be same as F-16, because even though it may carry more internal fuel, it would be used up soon due to it’s extremely high weight, which in turn is due to it’s F-15-ish size. Thus, MiG-35 by far, is the worst cost-effective contender for the MRCA.
Whatever be the case, in my view, the F-15 Strike Eagle is the world’s best fighter jet in the 4 and 4++ generations. It “beats” one & all. It also doesn’t have “fashionable” canards on it. They may seem to be a “Euro-fad” only.
References :-
[/QUOTE]
You are wrong here the MiG-35 is certainly at least 2-3 tons lighter than the Shornet. ~ 11500kg, v. similar empty to the typhoon. its mtow is 23500kg, carries 6500kg payload and 5500kg fuel. Do the math.
But ingeneral, you do have apoint the eurocanards are of newer design and that shows.
USS.
uss noviceMay be because it was competing with cheaper jets. And in the Korean Case the F 15 K was probably as expensive as the Rafale if not more. Being a matured platform helped the eagle.
Don’t think there would be much difference between F 18 and Rafale while EF may cost more.
USS. The ACM is talking about reducing types all the time, I do not think there will be a split order.
It might not be considered a typical “split” order if the other half is already existent in IAF inventory. JMT
USS.
uss noviceHigh price might not be such an issue – the previous ACM, Tyagi had mentioned that a smaller number could be bought so long as all else was met.
Dassault for eg., could offer a combo of Rafales and M2ks to fit the bill.
EADs could do with about 80 tiffies and 40 odd MiG-35s could be ordered for quick induction due to similarity with the existing fleet and IN fulcrums.
Worst case, go back to tyagi’s statement and they may just buy 90 odd a/c.
USS.
uss noviceHis Imperial Majesty Mikhail Pogosyan paid Mr. Bindra to shoot those tyres out. Damn, that guy’s good!!:cool:
Another ill omen, USS?;)
Between mssrs. pogosyan and federov, its hard not to be in a “Bind” for bindra eh? THis reuben johnson mightv’e picked it up from the notorious sengupta re the Zhuk A on the K. But shouldn’t be surprising for later blks to have AESAs.
I have a hunch that this whole MRCA circus is going to go poof once the LCA starts coming out in numbers. The idea is to check out the birds in detail via the tech evals, do consultancies/JVs for things that can’t be done in house, change the leadership, dump the MRCA and blame it on the global recession. Can’t imagine the IAF having so many types – Pakfa, MCA, LCA, MRCA, MKI with overlapping roles. JMT
USS.
uss noviceI don’t think the number of TRMs in the F-22 is officially 1500. I’ve seen various figures, & that’s the lowest. Also, it’s possible that the TRMs available when it went into production have been supplanted by smaller ones.
A figure of 1424 was published in 2006 by airpower.at, which has long seemed to have very good sources of information about anything German or Austrian. It was calculated from examining pictures of the CAESAR array, & using the known arrangement of TRMs, their known size (mentioned in the article), & the known diameter of the array.
http://www.airpower.at/news06/0922_captor-e/index.html
Euroradar have never confirmed the figure, but a spokesman did say that is in the range they were looking at. Official announcements (by EADS Defence Electronics at ILA 2006) have said that the final configuration had not been decided on, but would be between 1000 & 2000. The exact number in the CAESAR test array has not been revealed.Selex are currently using rather larger standard TRMs in its radars, 100x15x5 mm – according to this story – http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3917635 I don’t know if that is accurate. Those for CAESAR are supplied by EADS, from their works at Ulm.
The definitive CAPTOR-E may have a face which is both angled, & gimballed, giving a larger area. It also gets round the off-axis problem of a fixed AESA array.
Rafale has a smaller nose than Typhoon, & a figure of 1100 TRMs has been floating around for a while.
Russian modules are big.
Quite frankly, I’ll believe it when I see it. As the pics by sintra show, raffles has only about 864 TRMs (albeit its a testbed most probly). But still. Couple of reasons for being skeptical:
Most would agree that when it comes fielding AESAs, the U.S. has a clear lead. It has been also pointed out that the Apg-79 has newer gen. TRMs compared to the older AESAs (even the apg-77 iirc). Now the Apg-73 has a size of about 71 cm. Keeping in mind all the cooling requirements etc, the best the americans could do in this beast was 1100 TRMs.
How in the world are selex or whoever going to manage 300+ extra TRMs on a captor that is 10mm short of the apg-73?
The tiffy marketing dept. has been notorious for hype. Case in point – Typhoon has relatively low RCS. Ridiculous figures have been quoted by fan boys and then one official (high up in the pecking order too) states that it is 1/10th of the F-15! Not as grand an achievement as one might have thought considering their hype.
Bottomline, to believe in this amazing engineering feat by the tiffy guys would be v.similar to believing that the Russkies have cracked GaAN tech, and are implementing it in the ZHuk-A resulting in phenomenal detection ranges as mentioned by the outstanding Bill Sweetman.
JMT
USS.
uss noviceWell the difference between the F-16 and the MiG-29 is that the F-16s were contineously updated over all the years, while most of the MiG-29s are still the same as they were back in the 1980s. An upgrade to SMT standard would be required, because keeping all the old stuff and just integrating the radar itself doesn’t make much sense, let alone that the radar would have to be extensivley modified to interface with all that old outdated stuff.
I would agree about an upgrade upto SMT levels as a base requirement for the Zhuk A. But remember the SMT upgrade is dirt cheap compared to similar MLUs from other countries.
USS>
uss noviceOf course it is a major and costly operation, but so is the SMT/SMT2 upgrade. No reason why it could not be done. The way you make it sound, no major avionics system on any combat aircraft would ever get upgraded, you are particularly exaggerating the effort required to install new LCD MFDs – I suppose the Indian MiG-27 upgrade was a miracle? BTW, the N-G SABR AESA is designed precisely for refitting of older F-16s, which is why it is sized to fit a standard Falcon radome, rather than the smaller, slanted F-16E/F nose.
Another thing to note about retrofitting old (up for upgrade) MiG-29s with the Zhuk-A is the fact that, the current 2005 AESA prototype (680 module/575mm) itself is a distinct improvement over the Zhuk M, which does not have the kind of TWS figures iirc. The detection range of course is similar (although there have been brochures quoting 120km for the M). So upgrading to even a 680 module Zhuk A might hold benefits which are inherent to AESAs.
More importantly, the russki upgrades are by far the most economical. Take a look at the IAF Baaz upg – $ 1.3 billionfor 66 odd airframes including changes to airframe, newer engines, 1553 mil std avionics (MFDs etc), new NIIPP OLS, EW suite and so on. Amazing bang for the buck. Now compare this to the Vajra (M2k) upgrade, close to $ 2 billion for 50 airframes to bring it to dash 5 std (not nearly as extensive).
If countries need fulcrumAs to be upgraded to something state of the art, I don’t see why the SMT upgrade can’t include a Zhuk A (at least 680 modules in a worst case scenario).
FWIW, there is already speculation that the IN MiG-29s will have Zhuk As instead of the Zhuk M.
USS.
uss noviceI have a Brasilian friend who actually counted the exact numbers of MMICS in the RBE2 AESA set!
867 MMICS.
He used this photo:Cheers
Cool, thanks much! I had seen the pic before but didn’t dare to count the modules – the eyes simply can’t take it. I think the image is that of a test bed, wouldn’t be surprised if it has fewer TRM than the final/production model.
Any word on the size of the antenna though (in terms of mm), that would give us some idea.
USS.
uss noviceThank you.
Exact number not determined, but >1400.
> 1400 😮 Just how big is the Tiffy’s nose/antenna dia? I can understand size reductions in TRMs but that sounds incredible. IIRC, the F-22, which is a larger a/c has about 1500 trm. Captor antenna (70cm) doesn’t seem to be bigger than Apg-79/73 (71cm). The Zhuk-M is stated around 68cm or even 70 cm.
Under the circumstances, its hard to believe that on a similar sized array, the Captor will have 300 extra TRM! My guess would be close to that of Apg-79 ~ 1100 TRM. They are hoping to get 1064 TRM on the Zhuk iirc.
Btw, does anybody have numbers on the RBE-2 antenna size? IIRC, the RDY was close to 650mm.
USS.
uss noviceI was talking strictly BVR and currently the APG 80 should hold an edge over the Captor, the reports are varying according to F 16 Vs EF thread in the F 16 forum, when (and if) the EF gets an AESA it will be different.
Apg-80 has what kind of ranges? Look boss, try to understand – as Swerve was pointing out, there are no sources that give out real range data. We have to put everything we read in open sources in the perspective of certain universal parameters. One such parameter is the size of the aperture for the radar. The F-16 thanks to the small size of its nose sort of sucks in this particular criterion. The EF-2000 has almost a full 100 mm on radar size, which counts for a LOT. Compare the ranges for the Apg-68 (mechs like the Captor, RDY, Zhuk etc), and you will see the difference in detection ranges. A high powered AESA will probly be a massive improvement on the previous mech, but only within the bounds of existing limitations (aperture size). This is precisely why the Bars is considered such a powerful too, it is almost 1meter in dia (not to mention massive wattage behind it).
When was the last long range IRST based kill :rolleyes:.
Don’t try to be snide and smart (esp. when you are not) by using icons. This argument is silly, its like saying when was the last time stealth was used by a fighter to get a2a kills? Doesn’t diss stealth does it? The newer IRST/FLIR combos along with BVR IIR missiles such as the Mica are precisely for such reasons.
As for the Migs matching F 16s. The ROE here suited India, It may have been different if it was done in USA. Were the F 16s participated Block 50s weren’t they block 40 C/D ?
Again Ante, who is talking about USAF vs IAF? I leave that controversy to itself although the idea that ROE was only suited to IAF is total BS! My comment was to do with Simbex wherein IAF Bisons proved worthy BVR opponents to the RSAF F-16 blk 52s. Good grief! I suggest you read up on all the exercises that the IAF has done in recent times (Cope Series, Simbex, INdradhanush, Garuda etc). BR should have a pretty decent archive on this, so should this forum.
And stop saying Euro Canards…the advantage Rafale has over the Block 52s are slight at best according to our Greek friends, while the EF has a clear superiority.
What greek friends? The only guy doing all the Rafale bashing was shown up to be lying by most of the posters on that thread! Btw, the rafales used in those exercises were early models (no fully functioning RBE2, no OSF, no datalink iirc).
Again, read between the lines, the greeks are v. happy with their Mirage 2000s which they often find superior to the F-16s in A2A. Now, to say that a newer seriously comprehensive evolution of the Mirage 2000 (reads Rafale) is inferior in that it can’t do what mirages routinely do, is a totally backwards argument. The Frenchies must have been on dope to spend those billions only to produce an inferior or marginally better a/c than the M2k.
Or should they have consulted LM before thinking of such crap?
USS.
uss noviceHow about a block 60 with AESA armed with AIM 120 D :-??. I think in BVR the edge will be slight and in WVR total………..
The F-16 (block whatever) has a very small nose in which you can fit a small sort of radar which automatically restricts performance. The APG-68 performance is an indicator of this, the APG-80 even with 50% better range performance, will have a difficult time matching the performance of a Captor. And what happens when the tiffy gets an AESA in the near future? Further, it has no real IRST capability to speak of either, is less agile/nimble/manouverable, carries less fuel and therefore has a poorer ability to play catch and mouse vs the eurocanards in BVR. All in all, the tiffy pilot would have to be napping to let any blk falcon best him.
A2A, the viper (whatever its version) sucks in today’s “modern” skies. Hardly a wonder then that even modernized MiG-21s give blk 50splus a run for the $$.
USS.
uss noviceNot what the articles state though Austin is it?.
1)It doesnt mention a multispectral seeker. What it says is: BrahMos Aerospace had come up with a Block II version without changing the missile’s major systems. The seeker assembly would very definitely consitute a ‘major system’.
Hmm, perhaps the block 1 already had said multispectral seeker 😮 and the block II had some new s/w algos to further tune the said older seeker. Just a guess, but would explain the cocksure attitude of the IN, IA, DRDO, Brahmos folks from day 1. Remember, this is one missile that has hardly had a failure and the IA iirc, accepted it and deployed in record fast time. Which is truly astonishing considering the hoopla the IA tends to create before accepting any system.
2) The good Dr. says that the intent of the software change is to make it hit one target out of a cluster of buildings. What actually happened, according to the DRDO report to the IA apparently, was that it missed by about 1000yds. Thats not a minor software glitch….thats the seeker not being able to interpret the profile data its getting and throwing a major fit!
How can you tell? Theoretically, If the s/w is inadequate you could missile by a mile, right? Perhaps they were testing a blk II version of the multispectral seeker too as you suggested.
5) DRDO have apparently been guilty of fibbing to an IA General. I’m glad they are confident of the fix I would imagine they have some way to go to repair their credibility!.
For all that, the army was extremely happy to accept this missile, like I said, it did so with amazing alacrity.
USS.
uss noviceSuper Hornet it is then 😉
Bird of ill omen, thats what you have become! vive la rafale! or gripen or fulcrum or whatever 😀
USS.
uss noviceyou mean to say Gripens nose is bigger than F-16s?
My guess was yes, therefore I did say probably. Based on the fact that it has decent specs comparable to a/c with larger noses. JMT
upon further look up, the apg-68 is about 737X483mm, which gives us some idea on the Apg-80. The Zhuk M is about 700mm or is it 680mm dia? The PS-05 i believe is around 600mm (which should be smaller than the apg-68). Captor is about 700mm, RBE-2?, RDY/M about 650mm. I’m guessing the Falcon’s nose size/radar dia is slightly smaller than the Gripens. Better information is of course, welcome.
USS.
uss noviceNo you miss the point, rather than saying its less agile give me some proof, like Pilot testimony’s, comparitive data, DACT performance reports etc..
I just gave you some comparative data on specs but you conveniently look the other way. So whats the point?
Here, look at wiki for some straightforward stuff on wingloading, you’ll see why its so important. the blk 60s figures on this are totally out of proportion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
USS.
Sign In
