FBWWell panzer, considering zero evidence, no official reports, no corroborating evidence (in fact, photos of Khibiny-M directly contradict your assumptions), I would say the onus is on you to provide corroboration. Just because KRET has R&D aimed at developing GaN MMIC for EW systems doesn’t mean they are currently being manufactured, or fielded . Rather the opposite, considering the development times, lack of mature MMIC manufacturing output evidenced in Russian defense industry, and the utter absence of any evidence points to wishful thinking.
I’m sure more than a few forum members recall a similar claim in regards to the N036 Byelka, a particularly ardent poster “found” that NIIP was funding R&D for GaN foundries and claimed that the radar obviously boasted these TRM despite official sources stating otherwise. This proved to be false, though it is accurate that NIIP is researching developing GaN TRM for possible future use in the Su-57’s array. It would be pretty negligent not to be laying out investment and developing a roadmap for the technology readiness for future upgrades. I don’t think you can present evidence of current state of industrial output of GaN MMIC foundries in Russia, and if it first appeared in KRET’s portfolio 2014; it would take roughly a decade for technological maturity and volume production to bring costs down based on similar models of western foundries.
FBWurban legend. Check.
Yes, I’m sure the Saratoga aviators who attacked H-3 in 1991 would agree with you. Low level-=absolutely safe.
I guess your right, AdlA doesn’t need LO assets, after-alll shaping won’t help when your nap of the earth flying and happen over a “technical” mounted with a 14.5 mm KPV.
In all seriousness, there is a place for low level penetration, but you’d better hope the element of surprise isn’t lost. Radar guided AAA and systems like Roland dont give a lot of reaction time for countermeasures. Low level exposes you to pop up threats. Next time to interview a Rafale pilot, ask them if they would rather go in at low level or high altitude against an alert target protected by systems like Tor and pantsir. My guess is they are going to answer “high altitude with stand off weapons” , not to mention stand-off jamming and cruise missile strikes to neutralize long range area denial systems.
FBWAcquiring GaN AESA EW is not much of a good sales pitch to outsell F-35s if the F-35s themselves along with EA-18s will acquire the same technology around 2020. According to my updated Quora link answer the same technology is already present on SU-57s, SU-35s and SU-34s. https://qr.ae/TUyFkS
except it isn’t. Does your updated quora prove the existence of E.T. and give the Loch Ness monster’’s Twitter handle as well?
There are zero production versions of the Su-57, and few (2 maybe 3?) pre-production fitted with himalaya for testing. All I’ve see is that the EW system MAY BE updated with GaN arrays, as in they are a possible planned upgrade. And neither the Su-35 or Su-34 have GaN EW systems currently.
spare me the Kret catalogue argument, it is akin to pulling up Raytheon or Northrop’s (rather extensive) list, seeing the production of GaN MMiC and claiming it’s fitted to the F-16V or F-35 etc.
It was something like a year ago people were cheering because it was announced that something like 20,000 GaA T/R modules had been produced for the Su-57. That is akin to cottage industry production volume. Let’s wait for Russia to field any production airborne AESA in volume before claiming GaN EW systems, ROFAR and all the rest.
FBWAh your talking F-111. Was gonna say, Mirage-2000 is fbw and has flight control knot/Mach limits that can only be briefly exceeded.
F-111 was technically 750 knots on deck I believe, but actually time limited by heating (could greatly exceed 750 knots for short time). Yeah, I’ve read stories of pilots saying Mach 1.4+ on deck. I’ll have to listen to that interview when I have a few min.
FBWMore like M1.5 and going on
1000+ KCAS at sea level? No.
Airspeed limit at sea level is 800 knots- 1.2. (most likely same reason as F-16, flight control placard limit 800 knots),
600 knots using automatic terrain following.
FBWBut a small glass housing the IRIST ball is such a disaster?
Certainly not the most advantageous shape in regards to EM reflection, especially on the frontal arc.
FBWOtherwise you are selling PPT.
Sure, I’ve seen several powerpoints on how to perform STOVL landings and whatnot on a moving ship. While you may discount the fidelity of F-35 simulators, those training pilots to fly the F-35 have a somewhat different opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lnWqFOGgw
Simply put, there are workarounds: company test pilots flying simulated missions with testing equipment, high fidelity flight simulators, observers attached to operational units at an exercise like red flag.
FBWBut conversely to Danish evel, F-35 will be evaluated in flight, in Finland. Quite a difference. F-35 is already trying to sell the idea of evaluation of F-35 with simulators to swiss. Not sure they will be succesful.
What would you suggest? Sending pilots through the 8 month training syllabus? Find small pilots to sit on the laps of an F-35 pilot for a flight evaluation?
“F-35” isn’t trying to sell the idea of evaluation with simulators, that is the reality. There are no two seaters. Considering over half of the F-35 training syllabus is completed via simulators, they are accurate representations of “flying” the aircraft (and should be considering the cost of those F-35 simulators).
FBW[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER]
Two points:
1. Reading the above shows that your understanding Of CSG operations is faulty.
2. Your using the range on a specific strike profile for each variant shown in the SAR report. Very different from Russian manufacterer’s “range” claims. In an Air to Air flight profile, add about another 100nm and you’ll be close.
FBWThese recent posts stray pretty far from the thread topic and cross into morals and policy. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a section on this forum to air such things? We could call it “General Discussion” and separate it from the aviation forum section.
FBWUS internal prices are not export prices though.
The Luftwaffe paid $323m for 150 Meteors and $423m for 180 AIM-120Ds, giving $2.15m and $2.35m respectively
There is absolutely zero cost transparency in any of the contracts for Meteor, Period. The French deal for 200 missiles omitted contract value. There is no detailed breakdown for the German contract for Meteors (for all we know that was the cost of the missiles themselves and nothing else). The most recent government figure I could find on the unit cost of the Meteor was from 2007 in UK MoD major projects report.
The estimated unit production cost for Meteor was 1.1 million pounds (2.18 million USD FY 2007), which, by the way is double the SAR report TY 2008 Aim-120D cost.
Do you need an MBDA official telling you the Meteor is more expensive to aquire? I can provide that as well:
With Meteor’s expanded range, three combat jets equipped with the missiles could cover the entire length of the inter-Korean land border, which is more cost effective despite the higher per-unit price of the Meteor, according to the MBDA official
– http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi…d=167809&cat=3
An FMS customer pays what DoD does. There are fees for contract oversight, and a % of non-recurring costs based on their share of overall procurement.. As an aside, GAO issued a report to congress in 2018 showing that FMS customers were undercharged or granted excessive waivers for non-recurring acquisition costs (in layman’s terms- FMS customers haven’t been charged the correct % of R&D costs)
FBWI used simultaneous equations and several purchase figures to cancel out the support equipment costs. Depending which two I use it gives $2.3 to $3m.
The US government has a multitude of ways of calculating costs of a weapon system. DSCA notifications aren’t one of them. I gave you the unit cost which the navy paid for Aim-120D in FY2018. You could use the Selected acquisition report for a deeper dive into costs.
These DSCA notifications are estimates, high ones. So, unless we track down the actual contracts, using simultaneous calculations is just giving you an estimated unit cost. Not to mention unless you know the itemized cost of a spare Aim-120D seeker head, for instance, you not getting an accurate number.
DSCA notifications will give you a rough idea what one particular nation is paying to acquire that weapon system. You can’t really even use it to compare different FMS sales of the same weapon system.
As far as actual unit cost, if were to walk into a hypothetical DoD shopping mall and throw one Aim-120D on the counter, it would cost you roughly 1.6 million. Obviously a rather useless figure, as every weapon system requires support, logistics, various extras.
FBWSerious déjà vu from this discussion, it seems to pop up every year or so.
Spudman is absolutely correct on pointing out the MBDA quotes “3x the NEZ” and that range comparison to a MRAAM on the powerpoint slide are from the 1990’s. Meteor’s design and performance parameters were frozen with the end of design phase and award of development in 1999-2000 (other than losing a mid-body fin post 2002, smaller tail assembly). The Aim-120C7 was in development began in 1998 and the “D” was nary a twinkle in the eye of planners (critical design review was 2005).
In other words, no the Meteor does not have 3 times the NEZ (and whatever the claims of longer range) of the C7 or D as Spud stated because MBDA would have had no idea about the performance of those two missiles that didn’t exist when what became Meteor was being pitched for SR(A)1239.
Meteor betters AIM-120D AMRAAM in virtually every respect and in every parameter,
In addition to what Spud already pointed out, it would be virtually impossible to defend this above statement. Do you have access to information on both missiles resistance to countermeasures? Seeker sensitivity and range? Datalink capabilities?
It is also impossible to argue that the Meteor doesn’t have an expanded engagement envelope (particularly from rear aspect) and a larger NEZ. by virtue of TRD propulsion. To what extent it’s engagement envelope and NEZ are superior to the Aim-120D is unlikely to be open source intelligence now or likely ever. One would hope it’s enough of a performance advantage to offset the higher procurement costs. At least that’s the marketing strategy MBDA applied in Korea,
edit- for the sake of accuracy, gotta point out it wasn’t MBDA at that time, it was Matra BAE until 2002.
FBWSpud, he’s talking about P2E for the Typhoon that (among other things) included Meteor integration. It’s mentioned on your slide.
But the graphic from MBDA showing Meteor compared to other MRAAM has been around since early days of Meteor development, probably recycled by BAE when included in Typhoon phased enhancements presentation.
FBW[USER=”15685″]Sintra[/USER]
you have St. John talking about unit costs above. The argument seems to be all over the place. You are correct in that you will probably not find a detailed costing equivalent for equipping a user with meteor. I would state without reservation that the meteor is more expensive than the Aim-120D, some would argue nearly double the unit cost. Then again, consensus is that the Meteor is currently more capable ( though not quite at the level of Hallow’s silly comparison).
One issue that would seem to be obvious is that no user would operate both from the Typhoon. It probably cost a couple of million per aircraft for datalink and software modifications to employ the meteor and would be the same for the Aim-120D (I forget exactly how much it cost for the USN to modify each F-18E/F to operate the Aim-120D, but can locate it if anyone is interested). I very much doubt the datalink modifications and software are compatable to support both.
So yes, I think you are 100% right that it’s obvious UK Aim-120D’s are for the F.35.
Sign In
