By: bring_it_on
- 13th July 2017 at 12:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The cost of upgrading the aircraft is also to consider here. If you can swap in a new radar with minimal other changes to the aircraft then it can be made affordable as an upgrade. This then depends upon the configuration of the aircraft you are trying to upgrade and whether the sensor is designed as a drop in, utilizing existing setup and cooling and power resources. Different solutions could therefore come in at different price points and upgrade complexity. The latest AN/APG-83 contract puts the radar upgrade at around $3.2 Million a set for the F-16. I would say that is pretty affordable and can be rolled into a $6-$8 Million overall package for block 50 F-16's along with new mission computers and other modifications. Older blocks will likely need more extensive modifications which would naturally cost more so there this upgrade..
There is already fairly high volume production for both Northrop Grumman and Raytheon's T/R modules, particularly for the former given the number of APG-81s being produced per year so its quite likely that from a pure module cost they have achieved fairly good economies of scale with close to 1500 airborne AESA radars delivered and another 500 or so on order between these two OEMs that largely produce their own GaAs modules.
By: SpudmanWP
- 13th July 2017 at 15:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but the low segment of the hi-lo mix is still being well served with mechanical arrays
Multiple services are upgrading their 4th gen assets to AESA like the US (F-15C/D/E, F-16, B-1B, etc), Taiwan, South Korea, Rafale, Eurofighter, etc. It's a budget thing more than a capability thing.
By: JSR
- 13th July 2017 at 17:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not budget thing as far as Ruaf is concerned. They are getting TVC Su-30SM .try implement TVC in western fighter and see what happens to cost. plus the EW Pods that are bigger EA-18G. MIG29M2/MIG-35 designed ground up to be faster, fly higher and 50% further upto 3500km range with 3ET. this the most complex aerodynamic change. radar is very cheap part.
By: Yama
- 13th July 2017 at 22:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is pointless to only talk about radar since nowadays radar is an integrated part of the sensor system, rather than a separate instrument. How the radar information is processed, analyzed and presented is more important than whether the radar range is 80 or 100km.
By: stealthflanker
- 14th July 2017 at 01:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Their AESA looks nice.
1000 modules. assuming 10 Watt peak is 10 Kilowatt peak power total. range of some 120 km vs 3 sqm RCS target is achievable assuming 120 deg scan and some 15 deg (4 bars) vertical scan. The width of the antenna is about 61 cm. assuming half wavelength spacing.
By: Yama
- 14th July 2017 at 07:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since radar remains the primary sensor on an aircraft, it most certainly is relevant to the discussion.
The point is that if you simply take out an existing radar and bolt a new one and everything else stays the same, performance gain is going to be modest.
By: Yama
- 14th July 2017 at 08:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know you are being sarcastic, but yes, they are especially if the 'new' radar is an updated variant (even if using AESA technology) of the existing radar. If every parameter improves 5 to 10%, it's nice but not necessarily worth a multibillion upgrade program.
Most of the previous generation fighters continue to the end of their careers with their old radars, new radars are usually only installed as a part of comprehensive upgrade package.
By: bring_it_on
- 14th July 2017 at 10:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A simple radar swap is not a multi-billion upgrade program by itself unless you are talking about hundreds of aircraft. The USAF is spending around $240 Million for 72 F-16's to be upgraded with the AN/APG-83. Most extensive upgrade programs involve not just the radar but also other components such as mission computers and other electronics. It depends upon the baseline capability of the aircraft concerned. If you have really old aircraft then you will need more extensive upgrades and not just radars, much the same way Taiwan is doing with its F-16 A/Bs essentially converting them to the new F-16V configuration for around $30 Million a jet that includes radars, mission computers, cockpit displays, electronic warfare systems, JHMCS, targeting pods, and weapons etc.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 14th July 2017 at 10:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Everything from increased range, increased number of targets tracked, vastly increased scan rates, sidelobe reduction, inherent LPI qualities, inherent jamming, increased A2A/SAR/ISAR resolution, simultaneous functionality (scan vs track, A2A, A2G, data link, SAR, etc), increased reliability, etc...
You're right, those are just "modest" gains.
Let's not get carried away too much here.. For instance, the APG-79s have experienced significant deficiencies in performance, reliability, and BIT functionality during the first years of their deployment. Once the bugs were ironed out, the APG-79 AESA has, indeed, exhibited improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar. However, the tests did not demonstrate any meaningful difference in mission accomplishment between Super Hornets equipped with AESA compared to those equipped with the legacy radar.
In other words, a nice thing to have.. with good future growth potential, too.. but an instant game changer as you're trying to put it? No, forget it..
By: bring_it_on
- 14th July 2017 at 11:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The time stamped Director OTE reports don't say anything about how capabilities are improved, added or enhanced as the system matures and is made better in block increments. Go talk to a Super bug driver that has flown with both radars or one that has flown through the various stages of the AESA as it has matured. This is important because in many instances those legacy radars have hit the limits of their upgradability and reached a developmental dead end. I haven't on this particular aircraft but have had the privilege to speak with several F-15 drivers that have flown or flown against AESA equipped Eagles and Strike Eagles. No one seemed to think that it is just a 'nice to have' and marginal improvement in capability. They were all unanimous in their opinion that compared to the radar it replaced they got a fairly significant leap in capability and performance.
Unless FOTE is requested and granted, the Director OTE does not follow a given hardware through its various process improvement initiatives unless a major developmental effort is undertaken to produce an improved variant that requires major development and acquisition dollars. As a program manager and a service interested in getting something they have paid top $ for into operational usage and rate production ASAP you look to enter IOTE as soon you are reasonably confident that you will perform ok and get a decent report. This is reflected on the F-15 AESA project where he sites certain deficiencies but does not follow up later with another status report stating that the improvements since then have resulted in better than specified performance. I have linked some of those in the USAF non F-35 thread in the past. The reports created by that office are meant to be a reflection of the status as it existed at the time of the evaluation and it really does not talk of where it is headed or whether he or she will seek a reassessment to document improvements. Only if a particular hardware performs really poorly does that office request follow on test and evaluation.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 14th July 2017 at 13:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jocks opinion is only marginally important.. they are a bunch of whiners, eager to get every inch of performance.. they are not looking at overall picture, incl. cost, maintenance or upgrade prices.. they are not paying that, after all.. If the world was according to their wishes, all service cars would have to be Lamborghinis..
There is a reason why institutions like Operational Test and Evaluation Force or DOT&E exist.. To put all these performance parameters into real perspective and conclude what is really important and worth spending money on...
As said, AESA definitely offers greater potential for future upgrades, incl. new functions which can't be handled with legacy MSA radars.. I would definitely go for an AESA with all future aircraft.. but it is hardly worth spending money on AESA upgrades of existing aircraft like Typhoon, F-16C/D, Mirage 2000 or Su-30 series.. Not worth the money and effort, IMHO.
By: bring_it_on
- 14th July 2017 at 13:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I have mentioned DOT&E does not "Follow" the said hardware post OT&E assessment unless it flunks or does really poorly in which case they do and then stop doing it after its reached a satisfactory level. The services however do. The DOTE merely takes information from the PO's activities in subsequent reports if any are required and this is where there are varying opinions and often disagreements between the operators, program management and the DOTE assessment. The services live with the system. I have met enough fighter and other US service pilots to hear enough good and bad things about the kit they fly. Even with F-22 jocks the assessment is not always positive about every little system or upgrade path.
As shown in the other thread some if not most of deficiencies cited in their OT&E report are usually rectified after the fact and improvements in the systems produced as it matures. Specifically, in the case of the F-15 radars there were improvements that resulted in better than specified performance but DOT&E would not reflect that because he does not produce additional reports after a point. Same goes for future capabilities. DOT&E is rightly focused on the hardware at hand and not the bigger picture. He or she compares baseline capability to peak performance of the mature legacy system.
These reports do not comment upon what the overall modernization strategy is for the whole system and how a particular hardware fits in (and they should not). What if his report was required to address the Electronic Attack mode growth capability of the two radars in a given scenario? Let's pick the F-15 RMP as an example. What would his assesment be? Likely that the legacy radar can't even do it effectively while the AESA can if that capability is specified and pursued. This is important from a services_AOA and "BIG PICTURE" because they look out for these things. I've used this example deliberately since Raytheon has demonstrated these EA modes on the F-15 RMP to the USAF and they can take this capability and pop it in their future AOAs as they develop and pursue modernization strategies. In this case the capability of the acquired radar enables enhancements to the overall capability not possible with the legacy system which gets to one big advantage of AESA modernization in that it opens up growth opportunities compared to legacy MSCAN radars on these aircraft that have hit a developmental dead end.The operator community that initiates these upgrades and modernization tracks are not oblivious to this fact. It is their job to make sure that components are modernized or replaced so that a more serious medium to long term strategy can be pursued. Hints of this can be had from the CDD document associated with a given hardware's upgrade or modernization program but a much broader assessment and rationale is probably not publicly shared.
Same can be said of the F-16 RMP. What if the DOTE is required to address the capability as it pertains to providing F-16's with the F-35's BIG SAR capability? It may or may not be part of the baseline capability (under Phase 1 and 2 JUON) he/she reports on but is the capability possible with the legacy system and if so at what cost? It is possible on the -83 and is made affordable enough because there is software commonality with the -81. The DOTE won't comment upon this because the baseline goal is very specific in that the USAF wants " enhanced Air to Air capability to support the ACA mission" and rapid delivery under a JUON (24-36 month from contract delivery and install schedule for all 72 radar sets). In other words a pretty serious capability enhancement is enabled by radar switch compared to the legacy APG-68 but a future report may or may not even comment upon that.
Reading a DOT&E OT report months or years after it was written isn't going to get you any better understanding of the current capabilities of the hardware it reported on. This is not the purpose of the report and assessment. The PEO and the service approach OT&E at an appropriate time to get the appropriate milestone authority. You are really aiming for a passing score and not an A+ all the time. If you did the latter you would be delaying your authority and no one really wants that. What you want is to complete developmental testing, enter OTE and come out the other end with a satisfactory report and milestone authority. In between that you act on both your own internal assessment based improvements and any recommendation the DOTE may have made. You then move on to refining and improving the baseline product.
What you get from the DOTE is a report written by a bureaucrat that sits in the Pentagon. Actual program, service, and tester reports and comments are usually not made public nor is a ball by ball coverage provided once a particular milestone has been met. We occasionally hear from the program-office, OEM, or operator on improvements and enhancements done over a period of time but unless they are part of a major push and investment there is no formal reporting on it by the DOTE. This obviously does not mean that it is not being documented somewhere..it just means that you won’t see the DOTE go back into a report and providing an update.
By: JSR
- 14th July 2017 at 14:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since radar remains the primary sensor on an aircraft, it most certainly is relevant to the discussion.
The primary sensor of fighter is communication and netcentric capability with ground command and control network. Pay attention to Middleastern wars. It's the multibillion dollar airbases that most important . see Qatar example airbase can't be moved despite how much Trump allies in Saudi and UAE wish.
AESA radar can't change the aerodynamic performance of both fighter and weopns . Overweight AESA radar may decrease fighter range and performance.
By: TomcatViP
- 14th July 2017 at 16:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To end the OT digression, I Wonder how a nation so focused on new technologies still takes the burden of building a twin seat design.
Don't take me wrong, the fog of war still means that a WSO or RIO is needed in some scenarios. But flight automation will soon end the need of a Front seater the time the operator focus on the tactical situation. IA will ensure the pilot build a relevant SA bubble until his full attention on the tactical picture is needed and advanced autopilot modes will guarantee flight safety and tactical manoeuvres.
The merge of combat and flight software will alleviate the need of twin seats on fighter size aircraft (then complexity of systems on multi-sensored large platform is something else).
By: JSR
- 14th July 2017 at 18:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um, those are not sensors and they won't help you if it's you that is out at the pointy end of the spear.
why they can't help when fight is under formation of Flankers and MIG31BM2.
A properly designed AESA system is not overweight so are you saying that is what's keeping it out of the Mig-29?
All western fighters have gained weight despite using composite materials and practically no engine upgrades. Ruaf is not in rush to introduce mediocre AESA as they are working on 400km+ BVR missile and I presume next generation of standoff missile will hit targets at much greater distance. so much radar advancement is needed that it can differentiate dummy and real airdefence systems and fighters right on runway. For small fighter aesa incremental upgrade in radar performance is worthless. MIG29 is small relative to Flanker.
By: EagleSpirit
- 15th July 2017 at 01:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To end the OT digression, I Wonder how a nation so focused on new technologies still takes the burden of building a twin seat design.
It depends on the operational concept. Considering how 4.5th Gen designs have twin-seat designs while 5th Gen aircraft do not, I may be a indicator of Korea's reduced ambitions in terms of technological complexity. It may be purely for conversion training. Or maybe if the rear-seater becomes a kind of dedicated UCAV/drone swarm controller, with the benefit of hindsight it may be recognised as a embryonic 6th Gen capability.
On that point, as the advancement of UAV/UCAV capabilities causes the possible synergy between manned and unmanned systems to be explored, I think the concept of an 'Airborne Distributed Lethality' where sensors and weapons are shared between multiple platforms becomes viable. Instead of having a single (fighter) be a omni-role, jack-of-all-trades, one size fits all platform, why not have two separate, more economic platforms (manned and unmanned) work together? Distribute sensors and EOTS and stealthy 1k-lb,2k-lb bomb internal carriage to a more optimised platform. (Obviously Data-link, EW, Jamming vulnerabilities are an obvious weakness)
While the F-35 and the US's future UCAV platform will undoubtedly be the most capable, Korea could have a combination of KF-X and K-UCAV platforms that leads to nearly F-35 level capabilities at a lower-risk and for a lesser economic burden.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 13th July 2017 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The cost of upgrading the aircraft is also to consider here. If you can swap in a new radar with minimal other changes to the aircraft then it can be made affordable as an upgrade. This then depends upon the configuration of the aircraft you are trying to upgrade and whether the sensor is designed as a drop in, utilizing existing setup and cooling and power resources. Different solutions could therefore come in at different price points and upgrade complexity. The latest AN/APG-83 contract puts the radar upgrade at around $3.2 Million a set for the F-16. I would say that is pretty affordable and can be rolled into a $6-$8 Million overall package for block 50 F-16's along with new mission computers and other modifications. Older blocks will likely need more extensive modifications which would naturally cost more so there this upgrade..
There is already fairly high volume production for both Northrop Grumman and Raytheon's T/R modules, particularly for the former given the number of APG-81s being produced per year so its quite likely that from a pure module cost they have achieved fairly good economies of scale with close to 1500 airborne AESA radars delivered and another 500 or so on order between these two OEMs that largely produce their own GaAs modules.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 13th July 2017 at 15:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Multiple services are upgrading their 4th gen assets to AESA like the US (F-15C/D/E, F-16, B-1B, etc), Taiwan, South Korea, Rafale, Eurofighter, etc. It's a budget thing more than a capability thing.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 13th July 2017 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not budget thing as far as Ruaf is concerned. They are getting TVC Su-30SM .try implement TVC in western fighter and see what happens to cost. plus the EW Pods that are bigger EA-18G. MIG29M2/MIG-35 designed ground up to be faster, fly higher and 50% further upto 3500km range with 3ET. this the most complex aerodynamic change. radar is very cheap part.
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 13th July 2017 at 22:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is pointless to only talk about radar since nowadays radar is an integrated part of the sensor system, rather than a separate instrument. How the radar information is processed, analyzed and presented is more important than whether the radar range is 80 or 100km.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 13th July 2017 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since radar remains the primary sensor on an aircraft, it most certainly is relevant to the discussion.
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 14th July 2017 at 01:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Their AESA looks nice.
1000 modules. assuming 10 Watt peak is 10 Kilowatt peak power total. range of some 120 km vs 3 sqm RCS target is achievable assuming 120 deg scan and some 15 deg (4 bars) vertical scan. The width of the antenna is about 61 cm. assuming half wavelength spacing.
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 14th July 2017 at 07:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point is that if you simply take out an existing radar and bolt a new one and everything else stays the same, performance gain is going to be modest.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 14th July 2017 at 08:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Everything from increased range, increased number of targets tracked, vastly increased scan rates, sidelobe reduction, inherent LPI qualities, inherent jamming, increased A2A/SAR/ISAR resolution, simultaneous functionality (scan vs track, A2A, A2G, data link, SAR, etc), increased reliability, etc...
You're right, those are just "modest" gains.
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 14th July 2017 at 08:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know you are being sarcastic, but yes, they are especially if the 'new' radar is an updated variant (even if using AESA technology) of the existing radar. If every parameter improves 5 to 10%, it's nice but not necessarily worth a multibillion upgrade program.
Most of the previous generation fighters continue to the end of their careers with their old radars, new radars are usually only installed as a part of comprehensive upgrade package.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 14th July 2017 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A simple radar swap is not a multi-billion upgrade program by itself unless you are talking about hundreds of aircraft. The USAF is spending around $240 Million for 72 F-16's to be upgraded with the AN/APG-83. Most extensive upgrade programs involve not just the radar but also other components such as mission computers and other electronics. It depends upon the baseline capability of the aircraft concerned. If you have really old aircraft then you will need more extensive upgrades and not just radars, much the same way Taiwan is doing with its F-16 A/Bs essentially converting them to the new F-16V configuration for around $30 Million a jet that includes radars, mission computers, cockpit displays, electronic warfare systems, JHMCS, targeting pods, and weapons etc.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 14th July 2017 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Let's not get carried away too much here.. For instance, the APG-79s have experienced significant deficiencies in performance, reliability, and BIT functionality during the first years of their deployment. Once the bugs were ironed out, the APG-79 AESA has, indeed, exhibited improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar. However, the tests did not demonstrate any meaningful difference in mission accomplishment between Super Hornets equipped with AESA compared to those equipped with the legacy radar.
In other words, a nice thing to have.. with good future growth potential, too.. but an instant game changer as you're trying to put it? No, forget it..
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 14th July 2017 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The time stamped Director OTE reports don't say anything about how capabilities are improved, added or enhanced as the system matures and is made better in block increments. Go talk to a Super bug driver that has flown with both radars or one that has flown through the various stages of the AESA as it has matured. This is important because in many instances those legacy radars have hit the limits of their upgradability and reached a developmental dead end. I haven't on this particular aircraft but have had the privilege to speak with several F-15 drivers that have flown or flown against AESA equipped Eagles and Strike Eagles. No one seemed to think that it is just a 'nice to have' and marginal improvement in capability. They were all unanimous in their opinion that compared to the radar it replaced they got a fairly significant leap in capability and performance.
Unless FOTE is requested and granted, the Director OTE does not follow a given hardware through its various process improvement initiatives unless a major developmental effort is undertaken to produce an improved variant that requires major development and acquisition dollars. As a program manager and a service interested in getting something they have paid top $ for into operational usage and rate production ASAP you look to enter IOTE as soon you are reasonably confident that you will perform ok and get a decent report. This is reflected on the F-15 AESA project where he sites certain deficiencies but does not follow up later with another status report stating that the improvements since then have resulted in better than specified performance. I have linked some of those in the USAF non F-35 thread in the past. The reports created by that office are meant to be a reflection of the status as it existed at the time of the evaluation and it really does not talk of where it is headed or whether he or she will seek a reassessment to document improvements. Only if a particular hardware performs really poorly does that office request follow on test and evaluation.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 14th July 2017 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jocks opinion is only marginally important.. they are a bunch of whiners, eager to get every inch of performance.. they are not looking at overall picture, incl. cost, maintenance or upgrade prices.. they are not paying that, after all.. If the world was according to their wishes, all service cars would have to be Lamborghinis..
There is a reason why institutions like Operational Test and Evaluation Force or DOT&E exist.. To put all these performance parameters into real perspective and conclude what is really important and worth spending money on...
As said, AESA definitely offers greater potential for future upgrades, incl. new functions which can't be handled with legacy MSA radars.. I would definitely go for an AESA with all future aircraft.. but it is hardly worth spending money on AESA upgrades of existing aircraft like Typhoon, F-16C/D, Mirage 2000 or Su-30 series.. Not worth the money and effort, IMHO.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 14th July 2017 at 13:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I have mentioned DOT&E does not "Follow" the said hardware post OT&E assessment unless it flunks or does really poorly in which case they do and then stop doing it after its reached a satisfactory level. The services however do. The DOTE merely takes information from the PO's activities in subsequent reports if any are required and this is where there are varying opinions and often disagreements between the operators, program management and the DOTE assessment. The services live with the system. I have met enough fighter and other US service pilots to hear enough good and bad things about the kit they fly. Even with F-22 jocks the assessment is not always positive about every little system or upgrade path.
As shown in the other thread some if not most of deficiencies cited in their OT&E report are usually rectified after the fact and improvements in the systems produced as it matures. Specifically, in the case of the F-15 radars there were improvements that resulted in better than specified performance but DOT&E would not reflect that because he does not produce additional reports after a point. Same goes for future capabilities. DOT&E is rightly focused on the hardware at hand and not the bigger picture. He or she compares baseline capability to peak performance of the mature legacy system.
These reports do not comment upon what the overall modernization strategy is for the whole system and how a particular hardware fits in (and they should not). What if his report was required to address the Electronic Attack mode growth capability of the two radars in a given scenario? Let's pick the F-15 RMP as an example. What would his assesment be? Likely that the legacy radar can't even do it effectively while the AESA can if that capability is specified and pursued. This is important from a services_AOA and "BIG PICTURE" because they look out for these things. I've used this example deliberately since Raytheon has demonstrated these EA modes on the F-15 RMP to the USAF and they can take this capability and pop it in their future AOAs as they develop and pursue modernization strategies. In this case the capability of the acquired radar enables enhancements to the overall capability not possible with the legacy system which gets to one big advantage of AESA modernization in that it opens up growth opportunities compared to legacy MSCAN radars on these aircraft that have hit a developmental dead end.The operator community that initiates these upgrades and modernization tracks are not oblivious to this fact. It is their job to make sure that components are modernized or replaced so that a more serious medium to long term strategy can be pursued. Hints of this can be had from the CDD document associated with a given hardware's upgrade or modernization program but a much broader assessment and rationale is probably not publicly shared.
Same can be said of the F-16 RMP. What if the DOTE is required to address the capability as it pertains to providing F-16's with the F-35's BIG SAR capability? It may or may not be part of the baseline capability (under Phase 1 and 2 JUON) he/she reports on but is the capability possible with the legacy system and if so at what cost? It is possible on the -83 and is made affordable enough because there is software commonality with the -81. The DOTE won't comment upon this because the baseline goal is very specific in that the USAF wants " enhanced Air to Air capability to support the ACA mission" and rapid delivery under a JUON (24-36 month from contract delivery and install schedule for all 72 radar sets). In other words a pretty serious capability enhancement is enabled by radar switch compared to the legacy APG-68 but a future report may or may not even comment upon that.
Reading a DOT&E OT report months or years after it was written isn't going to get you any better understanding of the current capabilities of the hardware it reported on. This is not the purpose of the report and assessment. The PEO and the service approach OT&E at an appropriate time to get the appropriate milestone authority. You are really aiming for a passing score and not an A+ all the time. If you did the latter you would be delaying your authority and no one really wants that. What you want is to complete developmental testing, enter OTE and come out the other end with a satisfactory report and milestone authority. In between that you act on both your own internal assessment based improvements and any recommendation the DOTE may have made. You then move on to refining and improving the baseline product.
What you get from the DOTE is a report written by a bureaucrat that sits in the Pentagon. Actual program, service, and tester reports and comments are usually not made public nor is a ball by ball coverage provided once a particular milestone has been met. We occasionally hear from the program-office, OEM, or operator on improvements and enhancements done over a period of time but unless they are part of a major push and investment there is no formal reporting on it by the DOTE. This obviously does not mean that it is not being documented somewhere..it just means that you won’t see the DOTE go back into a report and providing an update.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 14th July 2017 at 14:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The primary sensor of fighter is communication and netcentric capability with ground command and control network. Pay attention to Middleastern wars. It's the multibillion dollar airbases that most important . see Qatar example airbase can't be moved despite how much Trump allies in Saudi and UAE wish.
AESA radar can't change the aerodynamic performance of both fighter and weopns . Overweight AESA radar may decrease fighter range and performance.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 14th July 2017 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um, those are not sensors and they won't help you if it's you that is out at the pointy end of the spear.
A properly designed AESA system is not overweight so are you saying that is what's keeping it out of the Mig-29?
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 14th July 2017 at 16:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To end the OT digression, I Wonder how a nation so focused on new technologies still takes the burden of building a twin seat design.
Don't take me wrong, the fog of war still means that a WSO or RIO is needed in some scenarios. But flight automation will soon end the need of a Front seater the time the operator focus on the tactical situation. IA will ensure the pilot build a relevant SA bubble until his full attention on the tactical picture is needed and advanced autopilot modes will guarantee flight safety and tactical manoeuvres.
The merge of combat and flight software will alleviate the need of twin seats on fighter size aircraft (then complexity of systems on multi-sensored large platform is something else).
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 14th July 2017 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My bad for helping to lead the topic off point.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 14th July 2017 at 18:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
why they can't help when fight is under formation of Flankers and MIG31BM2.
All western fighters have gained weight despite using composite materials and practically no engine upgrades. Ruaf is not in rush to introduce mediocre AESA as they are working on 400km+ BVR missile and I presume next generation of standoff missile will hit targets at much greater distance. so much radar advancement is needed that it can differentiate dummy and real airdefence systems and fighters right on runway. For small fighter aesa incremental upgrade in radar performance is worthless. MIG29 is small relative to Flanker.
Posts: 171
By: EagleSpirit - 15th July 2017 at 01:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It depends on the operational concept. Considering how 4.5th Gen designs have twin-seat designs while 5th Gen aircraft do not, I may be a indicator of Korea's reduced ambitions in terms of technological complexity. It may be purely for conversion training. Or maybe if the rear-seater becomes a kind of dedicated UCAV/drone swarm controller, with the benefit of hindsight it may be recognised as a embryonic 6th Gen capability.
On that point, as the advancement of UAV/UCAV capabilities causes the possible synergy between manned and unmanned systems to be explored, I think the concept of an 'Airborne Distributed Lethality' where sensors and weapons are shared between multiple platforms becomes viable. Instead of having a single (fighter) be a omni-role, jack-of-all-trades, one size fits all platform, why not have two separate, more economic platforms (manned and unmanned) work together? Distribute sensors and EOTS and stealthy 1k-lb,2k-lb bomb internal carriage to a more optimised platform. (Obviously Data-link, EW, Jamming vulnerabilities are an obvious weakness)
While the F-35 and the US's future UCAV platform will undoubtedly be the most capable, Korea could have a combination of KF-X and K-UCAV platforms that leads to nearly F-35 level capabilities at a lower-risk and for a lesser economic burden.