AustereIt looks as if ELTA has taken a Gulfstream graph, & superimposed a line on it showing altitude for a G550 CAEW mission – at 41000 ft, not the 51000 ceiling of an unmodified G550 which you originally claimed.
In fact I corrected myself then.
But you must note that the red line on the graph shows the best altitude for max range, not the absolute ceiling: at different speed, with less range, it should cruise even higher.
SAAB is selling two separate products: SAAB 2000AEW & the Erieye system. Its website makes a point of describing SAAB 2000AEW & the Erieye system separately, & stressing that Erieye has been integrated on multiple platforms, and can be integrated on others.
SAAB can offer SAAB 2000AEW cheaply, because it has a stock of second-hand but good condition SAAB 2000s. It wants to sell them. For customers, the purchase price & operating costs are good.
If you’re willing to pay more for better performance, then you can buy the Erieye system on a more capable platform.
We’re talking about the Erieye today on current platforms (EMB-145 and SAAB 340).
It should not need to be spelled out.
It should not need to say that Erieye is inferior to EL/W-2085.
This is like giving lessons to a rather dim child.
There’s no need to be rude, guy.
English is not my native language, be patient.
AustereWell, with an “ex” goldman sachs in charge, if it ain’t broke yet it’s soon going to be.
So long italian gold. 😡
Nic
He’s the worst PM possible, you’re right, but italians are not so stupid to want him after 2013…
AustereP.S.: regarding the G550 CAEW’s operational ceiling:
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/04/g-550-caew-c-profiled.html
(source: IAI Elta)
AustereOh dear. Here we go again.
(1) You previously quoted the ceiling of a standard G550, & compared it with an Erieye ceiling for which you did not give a source. Now you have provided your source, we can see that it shows that the ceiling of an Erieye-equipped EMB-145 is about 20% less than that of a standard EMB-145 – a correction factor you did not apply to the G550.
(2) You are consistently ignoring facts. I’ve already told you that the horizon limit in the SAAB brochure is for the SAAB 2000AEW, which has a lower ceiling than an EMB-145. You linked to the brochure yourself. Why didn’t you read it?
(3)BTW, on SAAB’s website it mentions “detecting . . . targets at up to 450km”.
(1) I’ve said it before:
Let’s assume a 20 percent lower cruise altitude.
There’s still a certain margin.
In fact an airplane flying at 40.000 feet has still the edge over both EMB-145H and SAAB 340 AEW&C.
(2) I did do it, and I thought: is SAAB so stupid to publicize radar performance as on the worst platform?
(3) What? Horozon radar does not exists there? :confused:
As you said:
I expect that the G550 AEW really does have a longer range than the Erieye, but we shouldn’t pretend that we know by how much, or that we can put any numbers to the tracking ranges.
Austereread instead of looking at schematic grafics and you find it
Yeah… a small missile (frontal RCS ≤ -10 dBsm) detected from 350 km?
Erieye isn’t better than any existing airborne radar.
Forget it.
AustereSo if you can detect a small sea skimming missile at 350km, shouldnt it be possible to see fighter at altitude futher away?
Do you really think Erieye can detect a small missile at a 350 km range?
Why doesn’t SAAB boast a such formidable performance?
And why fighters on the graph are only represented between 300 and 400 km from the radar?
AustereAgain, don’t go to war if you’re broke !! (which the Italians kinda are…):cool:
Do you live in Italy?
Do you know what’s happening there in addition to what Anglo-Saxon mass media report?
No, you do not. That’s why you say Italy is broke.
AustereBut their official brochures are a bit vague, & giving limited information about the capabilities. Haven’t you noticed that the Elta brochure is 4 1/2 years old, & says absolutely nothing about range? Or the imprecision of the SAAB brochure?
If you want accurate figures, you have to turn yourself into a government that they’re allowed to sell to, & show a serious interest in buying.
Austere:
BTW, please note that the Erieye range to the horizon is given for the SAAB 2000 AEW, not the EMB-145. The EMB-145 has a higher operational ceiling.
As I said on page 2, EMB-145H’s operational ceiling is 30.000 feet (http://www.haf.gr/en/mission/weapons/emb-145.asp).
I’ve just demonstrated its publicized range does not depend on radar horizon: it’s a radar limitation.
SAAB’s brochure says the radar can detect a fighter at about 350 km which is far within radar horizon.
Even if we consider a 20.000 feet altitude, SAAB does not say a sea level fighter target (among other things, it’s not so on the brochure).
What make you believe Erieye’s range is limited by horizon?
AustereI found it, thanks 😉
AustereOne somewhat interesting precision made in this TV report by rafale test pilot about rafale AESA radar is that it offers the best radar range, even against the big Captor M. Well perhaps nothing extraordinary but it tells that rafale AESA range is already quite good as I never heard anyone complaining about Captor M poor radar range.
Can you indicate the minute?
AustereThank you Witcha… 🙂
Austere50000′ is the ceiling of a standard G550. We know that the RAF Sentinel has a significantly reduced operational ceiling compared to an unmodified Bombardier Global Express. It’s a pretty safe assumption that the same applies to the G550 CAEW.
Probably you’re right.
Let’s assume a 20 percent lower cruise altitude.
There’s still a certain margin.
As I (& others) keep saying, the published brochures are deliberately vague.
The other sources rely either on those deliberately vague brochures, on possibly misleading non-attributable remarks by insiders, or are speculation. They’re not to be taken as precise.
Sure. Mine is a mere theoretical exercise, nothing more.
The fact is that I can provide sources for my estimates to infinity, it’s easy to do, but you can’t talk about diiferent “generations” with different detection capabilities without providing any evidence that range has been substantially increased during the last few years. Maybe SAAB’s brochure isn’t updated, surely it does not date at 1770 A.D..
AustereWhich are what generation?
And which one are they selling now?
Surely SAAB is promoting the latest version, and I think Pakistan ordered it (only) five years ago.
Austerei actually doesnt find you 330-350km source.
SAAB itself (http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Air/Sensor%20Systems/ERIEYE/ERIEYE%20EN%20Print.pdf): about 350 km.
Jane’s (http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avionics/Erieye-AEW-C-Airborne-Early-Warning–Control-mission-system-radar-Sweden.html): approximately 350 km.
D.I. Daily (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sweden-finalizes-saab-2000-aewc-contract-with-pakistan-02377/): approximately 330 km.
Globalsecurity (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/erieye.htm): effective 330 km.
370km may be the Horizon for the G550(fly higher), and this i critical for groundlevel.
For a target flying at 30 feet (a cruise missile incoming from sea) radar horizon of an airplane flying at 50.000 feet (G550 CAEW) is 520 km.
An airplane at 30.000 feet (EMB-145H AEW&C) sees the same target at 410 km (so the 350 km range isn’t due to Earth’s curve).
There’s a difference of about 20%: it’s not small matter.
Why dual mode?
Because it operates in both L and S band.
– – –
P.S.: ragarding the APS-138/139 radar system,
it should be able to detect targets as small as a cruise missile at ranges in excess of 145 nm.
(source: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA230120)
Austerewhaat? only in your mind if looks farther. Newest gen. of Erieye are extremly good.
do you have any data on the G550?
For the Ereye, many sources give a 330-350 km detection range versus a fighter sized target, which is confirmed by SAAB: http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Air/Sensor%20Systems/ERIEYE/ERIEYE%20EN%20Print.pdf.
Note: in past, swedish radars detection performances often referred to a 5 sqm RCS target.
Regarding the Phalcon, in 2009 the singaporean MoD quoted the G550 CAEW as having a longer detection range than the E-3C (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2009/feb/19feb09_nr.html) which, in turn, utilizes an APS-138 radar system.
The Naval Insitute guide to world naval weapons systems (http://books.google.it/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA212&dq=maximum+range+is+250+nm,+and+aps-138+can&hl=it&ei=wsXSTvq5HorFtAbw-7SvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=maximum%20range%20is%20250%20nm%2C%20and%20aps-138%20can&f=false) says the APS-138 can track a cruise missile at a range of 150 nautical miles: if that cruise missile represents the same cruise missile target mentioned by Globalsecurity in a description of US AWACS radar system (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm), as it is very likely to do, it has a radar cross section of 1 square meter; the APS-138 could track a 1 sqm RCS target at 227 km and a 5 sqm target at 340 km, so. Even if you don’t consider this a tracking performance, consider it’s exceeded by the EL/W-2085.
Yes: Phalcon sees farther than Erieye.
Can you provide better data?
Sign In
