F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
Did the Iranians return the Mig 29s back to Iraq??
According to Iraqi sources around 137 aircrafts of all kind flew to 3 Iranian air bases in late Jan. 1991 upon order of Saddam. Western sources said the figure is around 120 aircrafts. The original Iranian position after the Gulf war was that they are holding on to only 33 aircrafts. But in 2014 Iran is said to have returned to Iraq 88 Sukhois while some sources said Iran returned 130 modernized jets. It is not clear if among these aircrafts returned were mig29s.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
Enhanced GE F414 engine:


The same engine on Tejas Mk II.
 
Last edited:

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
But their emphasis on WVR is only secondary to BVR. They will avoid WVR combat at all cost.
Yes, yes.
It's why they are developping a new short range missile : because they absolutely will avoid WVR....
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
Yes, yes.
It's why they are developping a new short range missile : because they absolutely will avoid WVR....
We have already talked about this. The US air strategy is to prosecute air combat from BVR or stand off distances. They will avoid at all cost getting entangled in WVR fights. That's why you often hear this expression from them "if ever you find yourself in a dogfight then there's something you did not do right."

New WVR weapons from Western sources are the ultimate insurance in case their pilots are not able to avoid WVR combat. Of course we are not talking about some platforms like drones and helicopters that are expected to end up in WVR of the enemy.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
We have already talked about this. The US air strategy is to prosecute air combat from BVR or stand off distances. They will avoid at all cost getting entangled in WVR fights. That's why you often hear this expression from them "if ever you find yourself in a dogfight then there's something you did not do right."

New WVR weapons from Western sources are the ultimate insurance in case their pilots are not able to avoid WVR combat. Of course we are not talking about some platforms like drones and helicopters that are expected to end up in WVR of the enemy.
And my definitive position is that in cas of a high intensity war, between to hard piece (USA vs China for exemple), BWR fire will be irrelevant because too much risk of friendly fire, and air full of electronic signals, counter signals, jamming.... and then come back to meduim to short range fire (with a positiv reco of supposed ennemy. that's why Rafale, for exemple, is equipped with a TV and near IR camera)
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
And my definitive position is that in cas of a high intensity war, between to hard piece (USA vs China for exemple), BWR fire will be irrelevant because too much risk of friendly fire, and air full of electronic signals, counter signals, jamming.... and then come back to meduim to short range fire (with a positiv reco of supposed ennemy. that's why Rafale, for exemple, is equipped with a TV and near IR camera)
Sir there will be no "high intensity war" between US and China without going nuclear if what you mean by high intensity as WW2 or Korean War scenarios. The more likely combat scenario between them, as between China and India, are Vietnam War-like or ME-like limited skirmishes like a pair of Shenyang J-11 will attack a pair of SH in the South China Sea. More likely the Chinese will snipe the American SHs using R-77 from BVR and then will break off towards the closest Chinese air field. Then an intense "diplomatic war" will happen afterwards (but not much shooting).

But in case your default concept of air combat (WW2 or Korean War style) does happen in WVR, in other words dogfight, then rest assured that the fighter with HMCS will have the advantage over fighters that have no HMCS. The current IFF, Mode 5 now in the case of the Americans, are quiet advanced enough that you can rest assure there will be no fratricide (in fact there was no friendly A2A downings even in the 1991 Gulf War when the Americans were using older IFF)

All relevant data you need to know in a dogfight will be projected on to the HMCS, AIM 9x will be slaved to the JHMCS, hence a fighter pilot does not need to be shifitng his attention up and down between the instrument displays and the HUD (in fighetrs without HMCS) wasting precious seconds in concentration time. WVRs are decided in very short periods, seconds will be decisive. The first pilot that can aim and shoot his infrared missile will likely win the dogfight.

It goes without saying Sir that the SH is better than the Rafale from the BVR (it has better radar) and in the WVR combat since it has JHMCS while the Rafale still has no HMCS.
 
Last edited:

WolfPack86

New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,571
Likes
16,993
Country flag
U.S. interests in India's Defense needs is way up
On 10–13 April, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter paid his third visit in just 30 months to India — the seventh by a US Defense Secretary since 2008. The frequency of high-level visits reflects the prominence accorded to New Delhi within the Pentagon’s emerging strategy towards the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
In New Delhi, Secretary Carter and his counterpart, Manohar Parrikar, laid the penultimate touches to a series of defence cooperation, technology sharing, and research and co-production related agreements which — when finalised — will fundamentally, albeit incrementally, transform the nature of India–US maritime engagement in the Indian Ocean region.
An agreement to share logistics during peacetime will enable the two navies to mitigate capability gaps in the Indian Ocean, which has seen a progressive swelling in operational commitments. It will also breathe life into the India–US Maritime Cooperation Framework agreement, which had envisaged ‘an appropriate agreement on logistics support’ 10 years after it was signed.
The understanding to share aircraft carrier catapult-launch technology and design capabilities will enable the two navies to operate a complementary set of deck-based platforms, including P-8I patrol aircraft, E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft and, if an agreement on co-production is reached, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters. This will enable the two navies, in time, to operate separately but synergistically with one another across the Indian Ocean.
India and the United States have also commenced upgraded maritime dialogues, including on anti-submarine operations, at the official 2+2 and officer-to-officer level. This will enable New Delhi to both remedy its under-preparedness in the area of anti-submarine sonars as well as to deter the entry of Chinese navy nuclear attack submarines into the Bay of Bengal. US-sourced advanced communications gear will facilitate seamless and secure ship-to-shore and platform-to-platform intelligence sharing during the Navy’s day-to-day operations. In time, it could also open the door for greater interoperability with the US Navy in the Eastern Indian Ocean.
By the time the dust settles on this phase of cooperation, it is likely that the Indian Navy and the US Pacific Fleet will individually operate a set of network-centric intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets that allow a common information picture about the Eastern Indian Ocean to be formed and exchanged. This could potentially provide a basis for cooperative responses to possible threats.
Credit for the renewal of maritime defence ties resides at both ends. The immediate catalyst for stepping up engagement was the Modi government’s willingness to re-evaluate three foundational defence agreements of the Bush era on logistics, encrypted communications and geo-spatial mapping. Of even greater consequence has been India’s openness to jettisoning its long-standing reluctance to be associated with extra-regional strategy in its Indian Ocean zone of primary interest.
For his part, Carter deserves credit for his perseverance in working through the fundamental alignment–autonomy contradiction that afflicts US–India strategic ties. He has effectively worked to tease out a common middle ground that combines New Delhi’s desire to boost its autonomous capabilities through defence technology-sharing with Washington’s yearning for navy-to-navy interoperability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
In doing so, he has also overruled his own earlier conception of the role of India as a potential host for US ‘over-the-horizon’ bases and as a participant in US-led ‘coalition-of-the-willing’ conventional missions.
Yet the burgeoning US–India defence partnership needs to be kept in perspective.
Its geographic writ is unlikely to extend beyond the sea lines of communication and strategic approaches of the Eastern Indian Ocean and southern Bay of Bengal, except during emergency disaster relief missions.
From a functional standpoint, military-grade intelligence sharing and federated defence planning, including joint threat assessment and amphibious operations cooperation, remains off the table. Most of the smaller-scale ‘pathfinder’ defence technology cooperation projects, particularly those that are outside the main maritime sphere or that would entail private-to-private technology transfers, are likely to wither on the vine.
A sense of proportion must also inform the understanding of China’s strategic role in the Indian Ocean.
The eastern Indian Ocean will remain a decidedly distant ‘far seas’ theatre of operation for the Chinese navy for some time yet. Its South Sea Fleet surface task group conducted its first, and only, training deployment there in 2014. China also has limited, though vital, interests in the region. These interests, including free access and unimpeded navigation, align with India’s own interests east of the Strait of Malacca, meaning they can be effectively managed through diplomatic avenues.
In February, India and China inaugurated, and institutionalised, a mid-level Maritime Affairs Dialogue that will allow both sides to broach these and other related issues of common interest. Later this year, China, India and Russia will also hold a first-ever, stand-alone ministerial-level consultation on the security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region.
US–India defence cooperation has for too long lagged behind its potential, owing in part to a tendency on both sides to view defence cooperation initiatives through a lens of entrapment.
The tempered expectations but dependable delivery in the new US–India defence partnership might well come to be marked as the moment when the two parties settled for a more productive, though modest, engagement that translated their mutual strategic visions into practical cooperation in the Indian Ocean and the Asia-Pacific region.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/05/us-interest-in-indias-defense-needs-is.html
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
If the IAF do choose the SH then it will benefit a lot from the American's manic attention to maintenance:

Boeing Looks To SLAP Super Hornets Into Shape


ST. LOUIS—With the U.S. Navy using its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets more rigorously than initially expected, Boeing has started preliminary assessments of what is needed to overhaul the aircraft, increase its combat life and keep it relevant much later into this century.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-looks-slap-super-hornets-shape
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
It goes without saying Sir that the SH is better than the Rafale from the BVR (it has better radar) and in the WVR combat since it has JHMCS while the Rafale still has no HMCS.
Sir, Rafale has a weapon SH doesn't have : MICA IR. range 50km+

Rafale much stealthy than SH, so Rafale radar, smaller, can probably see SH before thebgigger SH radar can see the stealthier Raffy.

And a HMD will be integrated on Qatar Rafale as early as 2018. So if you want it and feel it's usefull (French air force doesn't think so. Maybe they are wrong), just firm the bill.
 

Bahamut

New Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
@asianobserve @BON PLAN
You will like this article
The Russian Philosophy
of
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat
Technical Report APA-TR-2008-0301
by Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng
25th March, 2008
Updated August, 2009
Updated April, 2012© 2008 - 2012 Carlo Kopp


Su-35 demonstrator #709 displays a mix of R-27 Alamo and R-77 Adder BVR missiles (KnAAPO).


[paste:font size="5"]AIM-120 AMRAAM, the principal Western BVR fighter weapon. The AIM-120A AMRAAM was introduced at the end of the Cold War to provide a "fire and forget" active radar guided weapon with a midcourse inertial guidance system and datalink support provided by the radar on the launch aircraft, allowing multiple concurrent shots. The AIM-120A was followed by the incrementally improved B-model, and then by the "short span" AIM-120C-3 sized to fit the F-22A weapon bay. The AIM-120C-4 has better kinematic performance introducing a larger rocket motor and shorter control section, and a better warhead, while the AIM-120C-6 introduced a better fuse. The latest AIM-120D introduces a redesigned seeker built for better durability in high vibration carriage environments, a two way datalink, GPS to supplement inertial guidance, incrementally improved kinematics, and better seeker performance against high off-boresight targets.


Most AIM-120 AMRAAM kills to date have involved 1980s export variants of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, with mediocre electronic warfare fit and often inoperative systems. These are not representative targets in the current Pacific Rim environment.

The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular. Test range trials have resulted in stated kill probabilities of 85 percent out of 214 launches for the AIM-120C variant. Combat statistics for all three variants are less stellar, amounting to, according to US sources, ten kills (including a friendly fire incident against a UH-60) of which six were genuine BVR shots, for the expenditure of just over a dozen AIM-120 rounds. The important parameter is that every single target was not equipped with a modern defensive electronic warfare package and therefore not representative of a state-of-the-art Flanker in a modern BVR engagement. Against such "soft" targets the AIM-120 has displayed a kill probability of less than 50 percent [1].

It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions [2].
AIM-120 COMBAT SUCCESS (US DoD)
Date Target Shooter Missile Location
27 Dec 92 MiG-25 F-16 AIM-120A Iraq
17 Jan 93 MiG-23 F-16 AIM-120A Iraq
28 Feb 94 Galeb F-16 AIM-120A Bosnia
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-16* AIM-120B Kosovo (RNeAF)
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
26 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
26 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
4 May 99 MiG-29 F-16 AIM-120A Kosovo

Where does this leave Western air forces equipped with the AIM-120 when confronting Flankers armed with up to three times the number of BVR missiles?

Illustrative examples are the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 JSF, the latter armed in an air superiority configuration with two, the former with up to six AIM-120s [3]. Assuming the Flanker driver does not exploit his superior missile kinematic range and shoot first - an optimistic assumption - then the best case kill probability for the AIM-120 shooter firing two to four rounds is better than 90 percent. However, if we assume that hostile jamming and manoeuvre degrade the kill probability to around 50 percent - a reasonably optimistic statistical baseline here - then the total kill probability for a two round salvo is optimistically around 75 percent, and for a four round salvo over 90 percent. Arguably good odds for the four round salvo, only if the missile kill probability sits at 50 percent, but the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF will have expended all or most of its warload of AIM-120s and be unable to continue in BVR combat. In a "many versus many" engagement, the low speed of both types leaves them unable to disengage and will see both types subsequently killed by another Flanker.

This best case "many versus many" engagement scenario sees the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF being traded one for one with Su-30MK/Su-35BM Flankers in BVR combat, which is the general assumption made for WVR combat between like opponents, and representative of many historical attrition air campaign statistics. To achieve this best case "many versus many" outcome of trading F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF one for one, we have stacked a series of assumptions against the Flanker - dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a missile kinematic range advantage, dumb Flanker pilots not exploiting a firepower advantage, Russian BVR missile seekers no better than the AIM-120, and Russian DRFM monopulse jammers achieving a less than 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability [4].

A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics.
Currently classified capabilities such as the use of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar as an X-band high power jammer against the Russian BARS or Irbis E radar are not a panacea, and may actually hasten the demise of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF in a BVR shootout. This is for the simple reason that to jam the Russian radar, the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar must jam the frequencies being used by the Russian radar, and this then turns the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar into a wholly electronically predictable X-band high power beacon for an anti-radiation seeker equipped Russian BVR missile such as the R-27EP or R-77P. The act of jamming the Russian radar effectively surrenders the frequency hopping agility in the emissions of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar, denying it the only defence it has against the anti-radiation missile. A smart Russian radar software designer will include a "seduction mode" to this effect, with narrowband emissions to make it very easy even for an early model 9B-1032 anti-radiation seeker.

The flipside of the electronic combat game is no better. The F-14A/B/D included the AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track set which allowed a target to be tracked despite hostile jamming of the AWG-9/APG-71 radar. It is clear that the addition of the podded AAS-42 to the Super Hornet and "air to air" use of the JSF EOTS are intended for much the same purpose. While this may permit the continuing use of the AESA radar to datalink midcourse guidance commands to the AIM-120s, it does nothing to deny the Flanker its own BVR shot. The notion that the defensive jamming equipment and infrared decoys will be highly effective against late model Russian digital missile seekers can only be regarded to be optimistic.

In electronic warfare terms neither side has a decisive advantage, but the Flanker does have a decisive advantage in aircraft and missile kinematics and in having up to six times the payload of BVR missiles to expend. The simple conclusion to be drawn is that operators of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF should make every effort to avoid Beyond Visual Range combat with late model Flankers, as the best case outcome is parity in exchange rates, and the worst case outcome a decisive exchange ratio advantage to the Flanker. Given the evident design choices the Russians have made, this is not an accident, but rather a consequence of well thought through operational analysis of capabilities and limitations of contemporary BVR weapon systems.
 

Bahamut

New Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
Russian BVR Missile Technology
5].

The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.

Russian concern about Western countermeasures is reflected in a propensity since the 1980s to use dual plane monopulse seeker designs, and even the baseline Agat 9B-1101K semi-active homing seeker in the R-27R/ER variants is a classical monopulse design, built for high jam resistance (refer photos).

The infrared homing seeker technology used in Russian BVR missiles has also evolved considerably since the Cold War. Early R-27 Alamo variants used the legacy Geofizika 36T seeker. There are claims that more recent variants use the far more agile Arsenal Central Design Bureau Mayak/MK-80M seeker series, developed for the R-73M Adder WVR missile, and since then announced by Vympel as the seeker for the initial heatseeking variants of the R-77 Adder. The R-73 series WVR missiles have evolved, to the extent that the 'digital' K-74E variant is a highly competitive scanning two colour design, inherently resistant to many flares and with the counter-countermeasures flexibility inherent in software programmable guidance systems. Given the established pattern of migrating extant WVR missile seekers into BVR missiles, it is a safe prediction that late build heatseeking R-27ET/Ts and early build heatseeking R-77Ts are likely to use late build derivatives of the Arsenal MK-80M series, such as the MM2000 subtype.


The latest generation of Western WVR missiles employ Focal Plane Array seekers with target recognition capability and high resistance to infrared countermeasures. Depicted imagery from the seeker of a Raytheon AIM-9X missile, which uses an Indium Antimonide bandgap detector array. Russian industry is working on such an FPA seeker, what is unclear is whether it will employ bandgap detector or superior two colour QWIP technology. When it enters production it is likely to become a block upgrade and new production item for BVR missiles such as the R-27ET and R-77T.

It is well known that Russian industry is working on a Focal Plane Array (FPA) seeker for their future WVR missiles, to compete against the ASRAAM, AIM-9X, Iris-T and Python 5 seekers, adding further infrared counter-countermeasures capabilities. The open question is whether the future Russian FPA seeker will match the midwave Indium Antimonide detector array technology in the Raytheon 256x256 device in the ASRAAM/AIM-9X, or whether the Russians will leapfrog a generation and opt for much more capable QWIP (Quantum Well Imaging Photodetector) technology pioneered by Germany's industry during the late 1990s.

There is considerable Russian scientific literature available on QWIPs, which allow a single chip to concurrently image targets in two infrared colour bands, and permit tailored infrared colour sensitivity absent in bandgap detector technology such as the legacy InSb designs used in ASRAAM and AIM-9X seekers. With the exception of the now retired F-117A, and the remaining B-2A, infrared emissions are a major signature issue for low observable fighters. While the low observable technology used is generally good against the upper radar bands, it is less so against high performance lower band infrared sensors. A QWIP based missile seeker operating in the LWIR bands (8-12 micron and 15 micron) has the potential to be quite effective, if the midcourse guidance scheme can get the BVR missile close enough to acquire the target.

Details of the Avtomatika 9B-1032 passive X-band RF anti-radiation seeker remain classified at this time, and even the antenna configuration has not been disclosed to date. This remains a unique capability in the R-27EP/P Alamo and R-77P Adder. What is clear is that the drive to digitise all Russian AAM seekers will be reflected also in anti-radiation seekers. It is known that the PLA has funded Russian development of new passive seeker technology for this application.

Fusing technology in use includes radio-frequency proximity fuses and in more recent designs, active laser proximity fuses.

From a Western strategic planning perspective the key development in Russian BVR missile seeker technology over the last decade has been the move away from legacy analogue techniques to digital software programmable techniques. This permits Russian designers enormous flexibility in embedding counter-countermeasures modes into these seekers, as well as enormous opportunities in smart signal processing to maximise detection range performance. Digital autopilot technology has been pivotal to optimising the kinematic capabilities of Western missiles and this technology is now available to Russian designers.

What is unclear from Russian literature at this time is whether there is an intent to expand the range of seeker technologies to increase kill probabilities in countermeasures intensive environments, and against low observable targets. Other than incremental development of extant seekers, there are options in the upper millimetric wave bands, and in LIDAR/LADAR (laser radar) technologies. While these may suffer similar weather penetration limitations to passive infrared sensors, this is often irrelevant in high altitude BVR combat above the tropopause. There are no fundamental technological reasons why extant microwave band radar seekers and laser homing seekers cannot be evolved to provide additional millimetric band and laser based seekers, respectively.

Multimode (or multispectral) seekers have not been common to date in Western or Russian missiles, mostly for reasons of cost and complexity - the best know examples being the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) and RIM-7R Sparrow, combining passive radiometer and semi-active radar homing guidance with heatseeking guidance, respectively. Larger BVR missiles like the R-37 and AAM-L easily have the seeker volume to accommodate a multimode seeker and we should not be surprised to see either weapon gain an additional infrared guidance capability, given the cost of these missiles and the very high value of their intended targets. What may not be profitable in smaller missiles becomes profitable in a counter-ISR missile.

One interesting Russian development, which underscores the willingness of Russian industry to experiment, is the Agat 9B-1103K-150 "Hummingbird" seeker, a downsized derivative of the R-27EA/RVV-AE seeker family sized to fit into an R-73/R-74 Archer WVR AAM seeker. The reasoning behind this evolution has not been disclosed to date. There are two obvious possibilities. The first is an active radar guided R-73/R-74 Archer derivative to provide counter-countermeasures diversity in close combat. Another possibility, given the Russian history of two stage or booster equipped missiles, is mating a 9B-1103K-150 or MK-80M/MM-2000 equipped R-74 terminal stage with a BVR capable long range midcourse stage for instance derived from the R-27 or R-37 series. Such a weapon would use the jettisonable midcourse airframe to effectively deliver the high kill probability terminal kill airframe into close proximity of the target. While such a weapon would be more complex than established BVR missile designs, it would overcome the primary deficiency of most such designs, in endgame lethality.

As with other key areas of aerial warfighting technology, Russia's industry has entered the globalised digital age and is making full use of the technological gains to be had.

[paste:font size="4"]Russian BVR Missiles - Size Comparison





Comparative assessment of regional AAM types
Type Seeker Model Acquisition Range Kinematic Range O/B Target G Launch G Length Dia Weight Adaptor
Units - - [NMI] [NMI] [deg] [G] [G] [in] [in] [lb] -
R-73 IRH MK-80 5.4-8.0 16 45 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-73M IRH MK-80M 8.0 21 60 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-73R IRH MK-80M 8.0 5.4-6.5 60 12 8 126.0 7.0 253 APU-73
R-73E IRH MK-80E 8.0 16 75 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-74ME IRH MK-80ME 8.0 21 75 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-27R1 SARH/DL/IMU 9B-1101K ~16.0 43.2 - 8 5 157.5 9.0 560 AKU/APU-470
R-27T1 IRH 36T 5.4-8.0 38.9 - 8 5 145.7 9.0 561 AKU/APU-470
R-27P1 Passive RF 9B-1032 ~130
38.9 - 8 5 157.5 9.0 560 AKU/APU-470
R-27A1 ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1103M 10.8-13.5 43.2 - 8 5 157.5 9.0 560 AKU/APU-470
R-27ER1 SARH/DL/IMU 9B-1101K ~16.0 70.2 - 8 5 185.0 9.0 773 AKU/APU-470
R-27ET1 IRH MK-80/M 5.4-8.0 64.8 45/60 8 5 177.2 9.0 753 AKU/APU-470
R-27EP1 Passive RF 9B-1032 ~130
64.8 - 8 5 185.0 9.0 773 AKU/APU-470
R-27EA1 ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1103M 10.8-13.5 70.2 - 8 5 185.0 9.0 773 AKU/APU-470
R-77 ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1348E 8.6 54.0 - 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77M ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1348E 8.6 >54.0 - 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77T IRH/DL/IMU MK-80E 8.0 54.0 75 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77P Passive RF 9B-1032 ~130
54.0 - 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77M-PD ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1348E 8.6 86.5 - 12 8 145.7 7.9 496.7 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77T-PD IRH/DL/IMU MK-80E 8.0 86.5 75 12 8 145.7 7.9 496.7 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77P-PD Passive RF 9B-1032 - 86.5 12 145.7 7.9 496.7 AAKU/AKU-170
R-172 ARH/DL/IMU - - 215.0 N/A N/A N/A 291.3 20.0 1656.0 -
R-37 ARH/DL/IMU ARGS-PD - 160.0 N/A N/A N/A 161.4 15.0 1100.0 -


Seekers:

IRH Infra-Red Homing
SARH Semi-Active Radar Homing
DL datalink
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit
ARH Active Radar Homing
Passive RF - Anti-Radiation Seeker - usually X-band










Su-35S demonstrator with exposed Irbis-E phased array and 90 degree off boresight steerable OLS-35 IRST turret. The now well established trend in Russian sensors for BVR combat is increasing range performance and countermeasures resistance. The 20 kiloWatt peak power N035 Irbis E radar is the most powerful in its class. (KnAAPO).


For more Link:http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
 

BON PLAN

-*-
New Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,510
Likes
7,217
Country flag
Russian BVR Missile Technology
5].

The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.

Russian concern about Western countermeasures is reflected in a propensity since the 1980s to use dual plane monopulse seeker designs, and even the baseline Agat 9B-1101K semi-active homing seeker in the R-27R/ER variants is a classical monopulse design, built for high jam resistance (refer photos).

The infrared homing seeker technology used in Russian BVR missiles has also evolved considerably since the Cold War. Early R-27 Alamo variants used the legacy Geofizika 36T seeker. There are claims that more recent variants use the far more agile Arsenal Central Design Bureau Mayak/MK-80M seeker series, developed for the R-73M Adder WVR missile, and since then announced by Vympel as the seeker for the initial heatseeking variants of the R-77 Adder. The R-73 series WVR missiles have evolved, to the extent that the 'digital' K-74E variant is a highly competitive scanning two colour design, inherently resistant to many flares and with the counter-countermeasures flexibility inherent in software programmable guidance systems. Given the established pattern of migrating extant WVR missile seekers into BVR missiles, it is a safe prediction that late build heatseeking R-27ET/Ts and early build heatseeking R-77Ts are likely to use late build derivatives of the Arsenal MK-80M series, such as the MM2000 subtype.


The latest generation of Western WVR missiles employ Focal Plane Array seekers with target recognition capability and high resistance to infrared countermeasures. Depicted imagery from the seeker of a Raytheon AIM-9X missile, which uses an Indium Antimonide bandgap detector array. Russian industry is working on such an FPA seeker, what is unclear is whether it will employ bandgap detector or superior two colour QWIP technology. When it enters production it is likely to become a block upgrade and new production item for BVR missiles such as the R-27ET and R-77T.

It is well known that Russian industry is working on a Focal Plane Array (FPA) seeker for their future WVR missiles, to compete against the ASRAAM, AIM-9X, Iris-T and Python 5 seekers, adding further infrared counter-countermeasures capabilities. The open question is whether the future Russian FPA seeker will match the midwave Indium Antimonide detector array technology in the Raytheon 256x256 device in the ASRAAM/AIM-9X, or whether the Russians will leapfrog a generation and opt for much more capable QWIP (Quantum Well Imaging Photodetector) technology pioneered by Germany's industry during the late 1990s.

There is considerable Russian scientific literature available on QWIPs, which allow a single chip to concurrently image targets in two infrared colour bands, and permit tailored infrared colour sensitivity absent in bandgap detector technology such as the legacy InSb designs used in ASRAAM and AIM-9X seekers. With the exception of the now retired F-117A, and the remaining B-2A, infrared emissions are a major signature issue for low observable fighters. While the low observable technology used is generally good against the upper radar bands, it is less so against high performance lower band infrared sensors. A QWIP based missile seeker operating in the LWIR bands (8-12 micron and 15 micron) has the potential to be quite effective, if the midcourse guidance scheme can get the BVR missile close enough to acquire the target.

Details of the Avtomatika 9B-1032 passive X-band RF anti-radiation seeker remain classified at this time, and even the antenna configuration has not been disclosed to date. This remains a unique capability in the R-27EP/P Alamo and R-77P Adder. What is clear is that the drive to digitise all Russian AAM seekers will be reflected also in anti-radiation seekers. It is known that the PLA has funded Russian development of new passive seeker technology for this application.

Fusing technology in use includes radio-frequency proximity fuses and in more recent designs, active laser proximity fuses.

From a Western strategic planning perspective the key development in Russian BVR missile seeker technology over the last decade has been the move away from legacy analogue techniques to digital software programmable techniques. This permits Russian designers enormous flexibility in embedding counter-countermeasures modes into these seekers, as well as enormous opportunities in smart signal processing to maximise detection range performance. Digital autopilot technology has been pivotal to optimising the kinematic capabilities of Western missiles and this technology is now available to Russian designers.

What is unclear from Russian literature at this time is whether there is an intent to expand the range of seeker technologies to increase kill probabilities in countermeasures intensive environments, and against low observable targets. Other than incremental development of extant seekers, there are options in the upper millimetric wave bands, and in LIDAR/LADAR (laser radar) technologies. While these may suffer similar weather penetration limitations to passive infrared sensors, this is often irrelevant in high altitude BVR combat above the tropopause. There are no fundamental technological reasons why extant microwave band radar seekers and laser homing seekers cannot be evolved to provide additional millimetric band and laser based seekers, respectively.

Multimode (or multispectral) seekers have not been common to date in Western or Russian missiles, mostly for reasons of cost and complexity - the best know examples being the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) and RIM-7R Sparrow, combining passive radiometer and semi-active radar homing guidance with heatseeking guidance, respectively. Larger BVR missiles like the R-37 and AAM-L easily have the seeker volume to accommodate a multimode seeker and we should not be surprised to see either weapon gain an additional infrared guidance capability, given the cost of these missiles and the very high value of their intended targets. What may not be profitable in smaller missiles becomes profitable in a counter-ISR missile.

One interesting Russian development, which underscores the willingness of Russian industry to experiment, is the Agat 9B-1103K-150 "Hummingbird" seeker, a downsized derivative of the R-27EA/RVV-AE seeker family sized to fit into an R-73/R-74 Archer WVR AAM seeker. The reasoning behind this evolution has not been disclosed to date. There are two obvious possibilities. The first is an active radar guided R-73/R-74 Archer derivative to provide counter-countermeasures diversity in close combat. Another possibility, given the Russian history of two stage or booster equipped missiles, is mating a 9B-1103K-150 or MK-80M/MM-2000 equipped R-74 terminal stage with a BVR capable long range midcourse stage for instance derived from the R-27 or R-37 series. Such a weapon would use the jettisonable midcourse airframe to effectively deliver the high kill probability terminal kill airframe into close proximity of the target. While such a weapon would be more complex than established BVR missile designs, it would overcome the primary deficiency of most such designs, in endgame lethality.

As with other key areas of aerial warfighting technology, Russia's industry has entered the globalised digital age and is making full use of the technological gains to be had.

[paste:font size="4"]Russian BVR Missiles - Size Comparison





Comparative assessment of regional AAM types
Type Seeker Model Acquisition Range Kinematic Range O/B Target G Launch G Length Dia Weight Adaptor
Units - - [NMI] [NMI] [deg] [G] [G] [in] [in] [lb] -
R-73 IRH MK-80 5.4-8.0 16 45 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-73M IRH MK-80M 8.0 21 60 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-73R IRH MK-80M 8.0 5.4-6.5 60 12 8 126.0 7.0 253 APU-73
R-73E IRH MK-80E 8.0 16 75 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-74ME IRH MK-80ME 8.0 21 75 12 8 114.2 7.0 232 APU-73
R-27R1 SARH/DL/IMU 9B-1101K ~16.0 43.2 - 8 5 157.5 9.0 560 AKU/APU-470
R-27T1 IRH 36T 5.4-8.0 38.9 - 8 5 145.7 9.0 561 AKU/APU-470
R-27P1 Passive RF 9B-1032 ~130
38.9 - 8 5 157.5 9.0 560 AKU/APU-470
R-27A1 ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1103M 10.8-13.5 43.2 - 8 5 157.5 9.0 560 AKU/APU-470
R-27ER1 SARH/DL/IMU 9B-1101K ~16.0 70.2 - 8 5 185.0 9.0 773 AKU/APU-470
R-27ET1 IRH MK-80/M 5.4-8.0 64.8 45/60 8 5 177.2 9.0 753 AKU/APU-470
R-27EP1 Passive RF 9B-1032 ~130
64.8 - 8 5 185.0 9.0 773 AKU/APU-470
R-27EA1 ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1103M 10.8-13.5 70.2 - 8 5 185.0 9.0 773 AKU/APU-470
R-77 ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1348E 8.6 54.0 - 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77M ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1348E 8.6 >54.0 - 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77T IRH/DL/IMU MK-80E 8.0 54.0 75 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77P Passive RF 9B-1032 ~130
54.0 - 12 8 141.7 7.9 386.3 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77M-PD ARH/DL/IMU 9B-1348E 8.6 86.5 - 12 8 145.7 7.9 496.7 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77T-PD IRH/DL/IMU MK-80E 8.0 86.5 75 12 8 145.7 7.9 496.7 AAKU/AKU-170
R-77P-PD Passive RF 9B-1032 - 86.5 12 145.7 7.9 496.7 AAKU/AKU-170
R-172 ARH/DL/IMU - - 215.0 N/A N/A N/A 291.3 20.0 1656.0 -
R-37 ARH/DL/IMU ARGS-PD - 160.0 N/A N/A N/A 161.4 15.0 1100.0 -


Seekers:

IRH Infra-Red Homing
SARH Semi-Active Radar Homing
DL datalink
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit
ARH Active Radar Homing
Passive RF - Anti-Radiation Seeker - usually X-band










Su-35S demonstrator with exposed Irbis-E phased array and 90 degree off boresight steerable OLS-35 IRST turret. The now well established trend in Russian sensors for BVR combat is increasing range performance and countermeasures resistance. The 20 kiloWatt peak power N035 Irbis E radar is the most powerful in its class. (KnAAPO).


For more Link:http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
VERY VERY INTERESTING !
Thanks
 

smestarz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
Rafale? Stealthy?? Dont you think you are too old to believe in DA spinning all the crap?
Rafale is not stealthy at all, just by applying RAM does not make a plane stealth, Even they calling SH stealthy and you believe SH is stealthy too?

Rafale has MICA, SH has AMRAAM.. longer range,

Future future futures,, why are you comparing what SH has now, with what Rafale can possibly have after 3 years??

Sir, Rafale has a weapon SH doesn't have : MICA IR. range 50km+

Rafale much stealthy than SH, so Rafale radar, smaller, can probably see SH before thebgigger SH radar can see the stealthier Raffy.

And a HMD will be integrated on Qatar Rafale as early as 2018. So if you want it and feel it's usefull (French air force doesn't think so. Maybe they are wrong), just firm the bill.
 

WolfPack86

New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,571
Likes
16,993
Country flag
According to Firstpost.com, the United States would like to sell it's air defense systems to India or start their joint development. This optimism is based on India's increasing purchases of US-made arms. The purchasing volume has grown from $300 million to $14 billion in ten years. Currently, the Indian military consider the purchasing of F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft for Indian Air Force.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/05/russia-unexpectedly-loses-india-and.html
 

Zebra

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/24/boeing-new-kit-super-hornets-growlers

Boeing Pushing For New Engines, Advanced Cockpit on Super Hornets, Growlers


By: Megan Eckstein
May 24, 2016 3:31 PM


First flight of the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet with conformal fuel tanks and Enclosed Weapons Pod. Boeing Photo


The Navy has plans to boost its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler capabilities in the coming years to match an evolving threat, but plane manufacturer Boeing is still pushing for conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system and a new engine that the company says would add even more range and warfighting capability.

Given tight budgets and a long list of needs for the Navy, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G programs vice president Dan Gillian said the company has scaled down its F-18 add-on list since a 2013 proposal for an Advanced Super Hornet.

“We’ve really matured our thinking on the Advanced Super Hornet and what the Advanced Super Hornet needs to be based on what the carrier air wing needs in the ‘20s and ‘30s – and that means a complementary way to F-35,” Gillian told reporters earlier this month.
“So if we think about the next 25 years, you’re going to have Super Hornets and F-35s on the decks together; what are the right things for the Super Hornet to bring to the carrier air wing … to give the Navy that warfighting capability they need?”

The Navy has already put on contract three Super Hornet upgrades included in Boeing’s new Advanced Super Hornet design. The service will upgrade its Raytheon AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. It will add the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV with increased electronic warfare self-protection, which is set to be fielded later this year. And the Navy will buy Lockheed Martin’s Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor system to supplement the aircraft’s radar, which is set to reach initial operational capability for the first block later this decade, Gillian said.

IRST in particular will give the Super Hornet fleet an edge in a high-end warfighting environment, Gillian said, noting that “not having to rely on radar, given where stealth is, is a big part of the carrier air wing” in the future. IRST sees heat signatures and therefore can help build a picture of where enemies are on a battlefield without emitting energy via a radar, allowing for passive target-tracking at a distance in a stealthy environment. Gillian said the first low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract had been signed, with a projected initial operational capability date of 2018, and the second LRIP was headed towards being signed soon.

“This is less than it was in 2013 – in 2013 we had an enclosed weapons pod, internal IRST, because that’s what we thought Advanced Super Hornet could be. This is about what we think Advanced Super Hornet needs to be to fill out the carrier air wing in the ‘20s and ‘30s,” Gillian told reporters.

The Growlers too will get several upgrades in the coming years. The Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) is a pipeline that will bring more data to and from the Growler, and the Distributed Targeting Processor- Networked (DTP-N) will crunch all that data with 10-times more computing power than the Growler has today, Gillian said. The Northrop Grumman ALQ-218 – the sensor package that essentially turns a Super Hornet into a Growler – will get an upgrade, the Raytheon Next-Generation Jammer pod will be added on for “a huge revolutionary capability” increase, and the AESA upgrade will be added to the Growler as well.

Though a significant investment already, Boeing says the Navy should go further and invest in three major upgrades to ensure future air superiority – an enhanced engine, an advanced cockpit system and conformal fuel tanks.

The advanced cockpit system is a 10-by-19 inch display that brings modern graphics and user interface to the aircraft, Gillian said, adding that this is a big part of Boeing’s sale pitch to international customers.

The advanced engine, a project with General Electrics, would add more thrust and fuel efficiency but comes with a high price tag, making it the least likely of the items on Boeing’s wish list.

Boeing and General Electrics are still in the “technical maturation (phase), so it hasn’t flown yet, we haven’t built the engine, but a lot of the enabling technologies that go into the [engine] have been developed in labs and proven in labs, so we feel confident about the projections of the numbers: 18-20 percent thrust improvement, 3 percent fuel efficiency improvement,” Gillian said. If the Navy were to sign onto the engine upgrade today, it would take about four and a half years before the first engine was ready to be installed, he added.

And the conformal fuel tanks, perhaps the item on the wish list the Navy is most likely to pursue, would reduce weight and drag and expand range and speed. For the Growler, that means the plane can fly at higher altitudes and would have more weight margin for the Next-Generation Jammer pods that will be added on. Removing the current fuel tanks would also give the external sensors a greater field of regard, helping the plane see more. For the Super Hornet, the conformal fuel tanks would extend combat air patrols out 120 nautical miles further than they can go today and would allow the planes to go on strike missions deeper into enemy territory.

Gillian pushed for the upgrades on both the Super Hornet and the Growler, saying that “if you make changes for one, you get to incorporate them on the other with relative ease,” but it is still unclear if the Navy will find room in its budget for any of these upgrades going forward. He noted the upcoming Service Life Extension Program for the Super Hornets – the first aircraft is expected to hit 6,000 flight hours and enter the SLEP within the next year – as an ideal time to do the plumbing work needed for conformal fuel tanks and as a potential time to install the cockpit if the Navy chooses to go that direction.
 

Zebra

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
Rafale? Stealthy?? Dont you think you are too old to believe in DA spinning all the crap?
Rafale is not stealthy at all, just by applying RAM does not make a plane stealth, Even they calling SH stealthy and you believe SH is stealthy too?

Rafale has MICA, SH has AMRAAM.. longer range,

Future future futures,, why are you comparing what SH has now, with what Rafale can possibly have after 3 years??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder

........................... The majority of Sidewinder variants utilize infrared homing for guidance; .....................
 

WolfPack86

New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,571
Likes
16,993
Country flag
AN/APG-79 AESA Radar Active Electronically Scanned Array

The revolutionary APG-79 AESA radar provides F/A-18 aircrews with powerful capabilities
The APG-79 AESA radar system represents a significant advance in radar technology – from the front-end array to the back-end processor and operational software. This combat-proven AESA radar system substantially increases the power of the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, making it less vulnerable than ever before.

With its active electronic beam scanning — which allows the radar beam to be steered at nearly the speed of light — the APG-79 optimizes situational awareness and provides superior air-to-air and air-to-surface capability. The agile beam enables the multimode radar to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously.

Now in full rate production for the U.S. Navy and Royal Australian Air Force, the APG-79 demonstrates reliability, image resolution, and targeting and tracking range significantly greater than that of the previous mechanically scanned array F/A-18 radar. With its open systems architecture and compact, commercial-off-the-shelf parts, it delivers dramatically increased capability in a smaller, lighter package. The array is composed of numerous solid-state transmit and receive modules to virtually eliminate mechanical breakdown. Other system components include an advanced receiver/exciter, ruggedized COTS processor, and power supplies.

In addition to the APG-79, Raytheon supplies the F/A-18E/F aircraft with several other systems. Among these are the current APG-73 radar, ATFLIR forward-looking infrared targeting pod, ALR-67(V)3 digital radar warning receiver, ALE-50 towed decoy and a variety of missiles and bombs, including laser-guided weapons such as the Paveway and JSOW.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg79aesa/

 

WolfPack86

New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
10,571
Likes
16,993
Country flag


The APG-79(V)X features the same modular, scalable form factor as the APG-84 tailored for the F/A-18.


2010s
Raytheon's technology experts know that today's multirole aircraft require multirole technology to maintain combat superiority. With extended detection ranges and simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, Raytheon’s line of advanced combat radars was specifically designed for the global fighter upgrade market. These radars—including the APG-79(V)X and the APG-84—are designed to slip easily into an aircraft’s nose cone. The simple retrofit can be performed in the field and takes less than an hour to complete. The significantly upgraded radar capability helps countries extend the tactical relevance of their existing F-16, F-18 and other aircraft in a time of tighter budgets, ensuring combat effectiveness for years to come. Raytheon delivered its 500th AESA radar system in 2013 and the 500th APG-79 AESA November 2014.
http://www.raytheon.com/media/sas/aesa/timeline/
 

Articles

Top