i was referring to typhoon, just guesstimated paragraph number, shouldve posted a screenshot though
That’s fair enough, it was primarily to illustrate a point to be honest. As I said, I do personally appreciate Mig’s insights positive or negative but only when they are constructive rather than very clearly designed to irritate people.
1 Like
when did they decide on radar?
1990’s. Actually more mid-80’s if you consider proposals on ACA for further derivatives of Foxhunter and BV.
I think it was 1980s to be honest. First flight was 1994 and they would’ve got the format nailed down some time before that.
I suspect they didn’t want a repeat of the old Cement Radar of the Tornado ADV…
2 Likes
britecloud also doesn’t need “integration” in a hardware or software sense…
not for eurofighter
not for F-18
not for F-35
hell, not even for C-130s
1 Like
It’s relatively plug and play isn’t it.
Does make me wonder if its a wide spectrum decoy or if it can narrow down its jamming frequency to further target incoming missiles.
then theres really no excuse for no AESA, take this 1994 document for example
on page 8, there is the prototype F-22 radar mounted on what appears to be the testbed boeing 757 they used for R&D
on the bottom of page 7 you can see a 1978 paper on PAVE PAWS phased array radar (AESA/PESA hybrid) cited
I am somewhat surprised they didn’t use CAESAR as an interim given they could literally just attach it to the CAPTOR-M mounting and it worked relatively flawlessly as far as prototypes go.
its made to be that way. theres the 55mm ones for eurofighter and tornado
and the 218 variant for 2" by 1" by 8" flare or chaff launchesr like those found on the gripen, f-16, f-18, f-15, basically any other western jet lol.
they’re entirely self contained. you just tell it to launch (like you would a flare) and it does its thing.
however you can choose to use a modified launcher to add a datalink to the aircraft’s ESM systems
2 Likes
To be fair - it was quite a while before they’d got a reliable AESA package for a fighter. The first actual operational jet with it would’ve been F-2 (early 2000s).
You either delay the (already delayed EFT) program or as @Flame2512 points out - you make probably one of the best non-AESA radars you can with the option to upgrade later on.
i think modern day ALE-47 launchers paired with AN/ALQ-250 EPAWSS (very new ECM suite) on strike eagle/EX should be able to interface with it no?
wdym “reliable”
one of the biggest advantages of AESA is increased reliabilty over M-scan, i believe they even say this in the document
a big issue, at least at first, was full scale production of T/R modules which is what the paper is about
You’re forgetting the F-22 programme was more than 3 times as expensive to develop compared to the Eurofighter programme. I think thats something often very overlooked, is that you are comparing the wrong aircraft.
For example a very good M-Scan could well have been a smoother experience and better starting point than a prototype AESA that could have been problematic for example J/APG-1 which is on a country with a budget closer to the UK’s was far from flawless upon service entry, and if you factored in CAESAR in ~2008 its not too far behind.
Though I of course accept that it was not in service and it is a very real detriment as many, including MIg, have pointed out very rightly, but that’s not from a lack of ability to produce AESA but a lack of funds to fund it. Also consider that CAESAR was a very good array for its year but the EFT programme wanted to take advantage of a gimbal in this respect.
F-35 will get that, idk about EPAWSS.
1 Like
remember the 18 F-15C equipped with AN/APG-63v2 AESA radar, in service about a month after the F-2 funny enough? i really doubt THAT was geting the F-22 budget
Maybe ‘reliable’ was the wrong word. ‘Viable’.
If it was easy - everyone would’ve had AESAs fitted decades before.
“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”
innovation isn’t easy, but it must be done to progress and maintain the technological edge
Yes the singular squadron that got AESA.
You’re ignoring that once you have developed an AESA you can develop many similar systems, such an expense was deemed realistic for F-22 programme but that would obviously have a crossover into developing AESA’s for things like the Arleigh Burke’s, or the F-15’s APG-63V2 or AWACS.
The F-22 was a justification that provided what is in most other countries terms a literally bottomless budget.
…yeah - but you still have to fund the thing. Remember this was at a time when the USSR had blown itself up and govts all over the place were looking at their defence budgets and going ‘do we REALLY need to spend all this stuff?’
You cut your cloth accordingly. I think Typhoon was one of the few multi-national projects that worked and delivered - no mean feat in the immediate post-Cold-War.