By: JSR
- 30th June 2017 at 04:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
smaller AESA radars not much effective untill this point whether it is in fighter or AWACS. look at the definition of next generation fighter. MIG always had the correct approach to fighters. I have more confidence in MIG29SMT than anything else in that category.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/06/23/business/23reuters-airshow-paris-russia-mig.html
Tarasenko dismissed the importance of grouping jets into "generations," and said the MiG-35 was already "stronger, smarter and more versatile" than fourth-generation jets, but not as expensive as fifth-generation aircraft that can evade radar.
"It will be barely noticeable on the radar - due to the reduction of the reflecting surface, the special radio-absorbing coating, and electronic radio-suppressing equipment," he said
Tarasenko said Russia was already working on new aircraft that would be "smarter, faster" and with increased range and a higher top ceiling range.
By: SpudmanWP
- 30th June 2017 at 04:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
lol... It's an F-16-sized AESA.. in fact the APG-83 (SABR) was chosen as the radar for the next version of the F-16 (ie Block 70).
Sorry to burst your bubble but older Russian tech (ie a Mig sized MSA) is not going to beat newer US AESA tech, especially since the APG-83 is derived from the F-35's APG-81 (90% software mode compatibility).
By: ananda
- 30th June 2017 at 08:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254372[/ATTACH]
Officialy KAI did submit to potential buyers of A50(or now FA50) air to air capability that can be augmented for BVR capabilities. Thus enable FA50 to be equiped with AIM 120. However this is only the potential, and it depends on each customers to choose to be equiped with or not.
Just like when BAE offered for HAWK 200 to be equiped with AIM 7, but in reality the customers (Indonesia and Malaysia) never opted to make their Hawk 200 to be equiped with BVR AA missiles, and choose to make their Hawk 200 for more ground support oriented.
KAI did presently have talk with Indonesia in offering FA50 as Hawk 200 replacement. They see it as natural progression since Indonesian AF used Hawk 200 after they choose Hawk 53 as LIFT. Since now the LIFT function in Indonesian AF has been replaced by T-50i, then KAI hoped to get contract for FA-50 as future HAWK 200 replacement.
All this shown FA50 aim in market is as Light Fighter candidate, so it's bit far to expect FA50 can be in similar function as Mig29 SMT in all sense. However as Mig 21 replacement for Croatia..I see it more to compete in'economics' of operating it compared to larger F-16 or Mig 29.
By: JSR
- 30th June 2017 at 16:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If software was able to overcome the benefits of 3 generations of AESAs then they would never have invented AESA
yup Israel is installing those AESA radars on hundreds of F-16 despite among first to put AESA on AWACS. Even French are upgrading M2K with AESA radar. India also following them with AESA upgrades to M2K. did i miss Sweden and its Meteor qualification without AESA radar on Gripen. and it is nothing compared to Ruaf MIG-29SMT with latest radar and IRST.
first understand what is happening in practical world. look all those F-18/F-15/B-1/B-52/A-10 flying around in Middleastern wars.
By: Semi-Lobster
- 30th June 2017 at 17:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As SpudmanWP mentioned, I was referring to written material ad brochures from KAI about integrating BVR weapons (in particular, the Derby missile) to the FA-50, I assume that they had integrated it by now but it looks like they're waiting for the customer to opt for augmenting the FA-50 rather than the other way around. I think it's a bit foolhardy to enter a fighter tender competition in 2017 against the F-16 and Gripen without beyond visual range capabilities "out of box"? Perhaps this is Lockheed's way of keeping their "side project" on a leash, so it wouldn't interfere with F-16 sales? Finalizing Derby or AMRAAM capabilities would certainly HELP the FA-50s chances, but as ananda pointed out, it's being used as a way to keep costs down to $30 million per aircraft. It's really a trade off, making the aircraft more capable but increasing costs would scare off budget conscious customers, but keeping the FA-50 a solely WVR fighter may hurt it's sales potential to air forces looking for a more capable as well.
In Croatia's case, while they are obviously "Budget conscious", they must also balance out national defence needs vis a vis their regional rival, Serbia, who are rebuilding their own air force.
By: SpudmanWP
- 30th June 2017 at 17:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
first understand what is happening
Lol.. All of the top Western military powers are switching to AESA, as is Russia with the T-50, Mig-35, SU-35, etc... But a software updated Mig-29 MSA is comparable???? :very_drunk::stupid:
By: JSR
- 30th June 2017 at 19:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yup with under power engines ,small nose and overworked airframes you are going to produce competitive fighter to MIG29 which is second to none in combat performance. Russian engines are always superior and less maintaince intensive . Look at sortie rates of Su-24/Su-25.
By: TooCool_12f
- 30th June 2017 at 19:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ SpudmanWp
here it's not about the radar's capabilities but rather that right now, the FA50 has no BVR weapons integrated apparently.. so regardless of its radar, it can't shoot anywhere further than what the Sidewinder can go
what's more, Serbia is even more broke than Croatia (well, both are, in fact), so they should not be able to build a significant air force anyway... especially in order to attack a NATO country)... on that linked page there's also this other link:
where basically they explain that Russia gives Serbia 6 used Migs 29 (to be fully modernized for more or less 200 million dollars), 30 tanks and 30 combat vehicles in the name of "slavic brotherhood". hardly to be considered as a serious threat.. except for those who need a threat to justify their own policy, that is... ;)
By: ananda
- 13th July 2017 at 08:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Design of KFX C-107 and C-108. Seems if not mistaken 107 for single seat and 108 for double seat ? Sorry not speaking Korean, hope some Korean members can put more light on this.
By: EagleSpirit
- 13th July 2017 at 08:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Single and Dual seaters are parallel variants of the C108. C107 becomes C108. (Beginning from the very rough, F-35 benchmarked C103 to the final C109)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254672[/ATTACH]
As seen by the above image computer models and wind tunnel testing is helping to improve the design of the aircraft from the canopy and intake to the overall size.
By: EagleSpirit
- 13th July 2017 at 09:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
May be a technology issue (not able to modify a dedicated test-bed aircraft), cost issue, or time issue. It's technically not 'the Aesa Radar' to go on the KF-X it's a smaller 4~500 TRM hardware prototype to validate the antenna/TRM design by 2019.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 13th July 2017 at 11:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lol.. All of the top Western military powers are switching to AESA, as is Russia with the T-50, Mig-35, SU-35, etc... But a software updated Mig-29 MSA is comparable????
They are not.. most of the western powers go for an AESA radar with a new gen aircraft, mostly because there are no F-35s or Super Hornets being offered without AESA, anymore.. but the low segment of the hi-lo mix is still being well served with mechanical arrays - look at all those new built F-16 Block 50/52s flying in Egypt, Chile, Morocco, Poland, Greece, Israel or Oman.. I'd say it's rather sensible to have a cheap fighter on offer without AESA.. still plenty of time to upgrade later when the price of TRMs has dropped down significantly..
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 29th June 2017 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That Su-30MKM outperfirmed what ever was offered for F-18E for RMAF in 2002. I am sure the high power ZHUK outperform the single engine fighter AESA.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 29th June 2017 at 20:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The APG-79 AESA which is currently on the Superhornet was not available in 2002 as OPEVAL started in Dec 2006 for the APG-79.
Initial Super Hornets had the Classic Hornet's radar for Block 1 which is what likely was used to compare to the Su-30MKM.
Am I surprised that a very large phased array ESA outperformed an older MSA, no... But that's not the issue we're talking about.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 30th June 2017 at 04:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
smaller AESA radars not much effective untill this point whether it is in fighter or AWACS. look at the definition of next generation fighter. MIG always had the correct approach to fighters. I have more confidence in MIG29SMT than anything else in that category.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 30th June 2017 at 04:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
lol... It's an F-16-sized AESA.. in fact the APG-83 (SABR) was chosen as the radar for the next version of the F-16 (ie Block 70).
Sorry to burst your bubble but older Russian tech (ie a Mig sized MSA) is not going to beat newer US AESA tech, especially since the APG-83 is derived from the F-35's APG-81 (90% software mode compatibility).
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 30th June 2017 at 05:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-16 is consider small size like Gripen. Those MSA radars continously upgraded. or do you think they not updating software.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 30th June 2017 at 07:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If software was able to overcome the benefits of 3 generations of AESAs then they would never have invented AESA.
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 30th June 2017 at 08:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254372[/ATTACH]
Officialy KAI did submit to potential buyers of A50(or now FA50) air to air capability that can be augmented for BVR capabilities. Thus enable FA50 to be equiped with AIM 120. However this is only the potential, and it depends on each customers to choose to be equiped with or not.
Just like when BAE offered for HAWK 200 to be equiped with AIM 7, but in reality the customers (Indonesia and Malaysia) never opted to make their Hawk 200 to be equiped with BVR AA missiles, and choose to make their Hawk 200 for more ground support oriented.
KAI did presently have talk with Indonesia in offering FA50 as Hawk 200 replacement. They see it as natural progression since Indonesian AF used Hawk 200 after they choose Hawk 53 as LIFT. Since now the LIFT function in Indonesian AF has been replaced by T-50i, then KAI hoped to get contract for FA-50 as future HAWK 200 replacement.
All this shown FA50 aim in market is as Light Fighter candidate, so it's bit far to expect FA50 can be in similar function as Mig29 SMT in all sense. However as Mig 21 replacement for Croatia..I see it more to compete in'economics' of operating it compared to larger F-16 or Mig 29.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 30th June 2017 at 16:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yup Israel is installing those AESA radars on hundreds of F-16 despite among first to put AESA on AWACS. Even French are upgrading M2K with AESA radar. India also following them with AESA upgrades to M2K. did i miss Sweden and its Meteor qualification without AESA radar on Gripen. and it is nothing compared to Ruaf MIG-29SMT with latest radar and IRST.
first understand what is happening in practical world. look all those F-18/F-15/B-1/B-52/A-10 flying around in Middleastern wars.
Posts: 115
By: Semi-Lobster - 30th June 2017 at 17:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As SpudmanWP mentioned, I was referring to written material ad brochures from KAI about integrating BVR weapons (in particular, the Derby missile) to the FA-50, I assume that they had integrated it by now but it looks like they're waiting for the customer to opt for augmenting the FA-50 rather than the other way around. I think it's a bit foolhardy to enter a fighter tender competition in 2017 against the F-16 and Gripen without beyond visual range capabilities "out of box"? Perhaps this is Lockheed's way of keeping their "side project" on a leash, so it wouldn't interfere with F-16 sales? Finalizing Derby or AMRAAM capabilities would certainly HELP the FA-50s chances, but as ananda pointed out, it's being used as a way to keep costs down to $30 million per aircraft. It's really a trade off, making the aircraft more capable but increasing costs would scare off budget conscious customers, but keeping the FA-50 a solely WVR fighter may hurt it's sales potential to air forces looking for a more capable as well.
In Croatia's case, while they are obviously "Budget conscious", they must also balance out national defence needs vis a vis their regional rival, Serbia, who are rebuilding their own air force.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 30th June 2017 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lol.. All of the top Western military powers are switching to AESA, as is Russia with the T-50, Mig-35, SU-35, etc... But a software updated Mig-29 MSA is comparable???? :very_drunk::stupid:
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 30th June 2017 at 18:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those aircrafts are not with weak engines and small nose like old F16
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 30th June 2017 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Engines have nothing do with radars and don't get me started on historical Russian Engine performance. :stupid:
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 30th June 2017 at 19:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yup with under power engines ,small nose and overworked airframes you are going to produce competitive fighter to MIG29 which is second to none in combat performance. Russian engines are always superior and less maintaince intensive . Look at sortie rates of Su-24/Su-25.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 30th June 2017 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ SpudmanWp
here it's not about the radar's capabilities but rather that right now, the FA50 has no BVR weapons integrated apparently.. so regardless of its radar, it can't shoot anywhere further than what the Sidewinder can go
what's more, Serbia is even more broke than Croatia (well, both are, in fact), so they should not be able to build a significant air force anyway... especially in order to attack a NATO country)... on that linked page there's also this other link:
https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/rusija-srbiji-poklanja-mig-ove-tenkove-i-borbena-vozila-vucic-to-ce-dramaticno-poboljsati-sposobnosti-nase-vojske-1137290
where basically they explain that Russia gives Serbia 6 used Migs 29 (to be fully modernized for more or less 200 million dollars), 30 tanks and 30 combat vehicles in the name of "slavic brotherhood". hardly to be considered as a serious threat.. except for those who need a threat to justify their own policy, that is... ;)
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 30th June 2017 at 19:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@TooCool.. You are correct and I am sorry that I got distracted.
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 13th July 2017 at 08:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Design of KFX C-107 and C-108. Seems if not mistaken 107 for single seat and 108 for double seat ? Sorry not speaking Korean, hope some Korean members can put more light on this.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254670[/ATTACH]
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10067&pn=1&num=1008#none
Posts: 171
By: EagleSpirit - 13th July 2017 at 08:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Single and Dual seaters are parallel variants of the C108. C107 becomes C108. (Beginning from the very rough, F-35 benchmarked C103 to the final C109)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254672[/ATTACH]
As seen by the above image computer models and wind tunnel testing is helping to improve the design of the aircraft from the canopy and intake to the overall size.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 13th July 2017 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting the way they are testing the Aesa radar?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254673[/ATTACH]
Posts: 171
By: EagleSpirit - 13th July 2017 at 09:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
May be a technology issue (not able to modify a dedicated test-bed aircraft), cost issue, or time issue. It's technically not 'the Aesa Radar' to go on the KF-X it's a smaller 4~500 TRM hardware prototype to validate the antenna/TRM design by 2019.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 13th July 2017 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They are not.. most of the western powers go for an AESA radar with a new gen aircraft, mostly because there are no F-35s or Super Hornets being offered without AESA, anymore.. but the low segment of the hi-lo mix is still being well served with mechanical arrays - look at all those new built F-16 Block 50/52s flying in Egypt, Chile, Morocco, Poland, Greece, Israel or Oman.. I'd say it's rather sensible to have a cheap fighter on offer without AESA.. still plenty of time to upgrade later when the price of TRMs has dropped down significantly..