Sources, please.
Gripen NG
- Thread starter Vivendi
- Start date
- Status
Crusader2000
Banned Member
The U.S. Naval InstituteSources, please.
The Naval Institute guide to world ... - Google Books
Plus, here's another source.......
Of the current generation of US AESA radars, the only one which is well technically documented in the open literature is the APG-79, which will therefore be used as a baseline for comparison against the Flanker radars. Of the current generation of U.S. AESA Radars, the only one which is technically well documented in the open literature is the APG-79, which will therefore be used as a baseline for comparison against the Flanker Radars.
The APG-79 was initially sold as a block upgrade to the legacy APG-73, itself an incremental upgrade to the APG-65. The APG-79 was initially sold as a block upgrade to the APG-73 legacy, itself an incremental upgrade to the APG-65. The APG-79 however ended up being much more than a simple block upgrade, adding not only a powerful AESA, but including additional processing capability and tight integration with the ALR-67 radar warning and emitter locating system, and requiring forward fuselage changes to the aircraft. One of the key design considerations was to improve the capability to detect and engage anti-shipping cruise missiles, a major problem for the US Navy Carrier Battle Groups. Given the relatively modest footprint to be defended, the poor supersonic performance and payload range of the Super Hornet was less important than the ability to lift an X-band radar above the horizon of the shipboard defences. The APG-79 however ended up being much more than a simple block upgrade, adding not only a powerful AESA, but including additional processing capability and tight integration with the ALR-67 radar warning and emitter locating system, and requiring changes to the forward fuselage aircraft. One of the key design considerations was to improve the capability to detect and engage anti-shipping cruise missile, the major problem for the U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Groups. Given the relatively modest footprint to be defended, the poor performance supersonic range and payload of the Super Hornet was less important than the ability to lift an X-band radar above the horizon of the shipboard defense.
There is enough unclassified data available at this time to perform a reasonable estimation of performance bounds on this radar, with the caveat that evolving transistor technology over the life cycle of the design will see shifts in performance. The radar is known to have ~1100 modules , which assuming like per module power rating, cooling and X-band wavelength would result in around 70 percent of the power rating of the APG-77 . This puts the radar broadly between 10 kW and 20 kW peak power ratings . There is enough unclassified data available at this time to perform a reasonable estimation of performance bounds on this radar, with the caveat that evolving transistor technology over the life cycle of the design will see shifts in performance. The radar is known to have ~ 1100 modules , which like assuming per module power rating, cooling and X-band wavelength would result in around 70 percent of the power rating of the APG-77. This puts the radar broadly between 10 kW and 20 kW peak power ratings. Public data comparing the APG-71, APG-73 and APG-79 yields an indication that the radar has similar power aperture product performance to the 10 kW rated APG-71, which for half the antenna area yields a peak power rating of the order of 20 kW. Public date comparing the APG-71, APG-73 and APG-79 yields an indication that the radar power aperture product has similar performance to the 10 kW rated APG-71, which is half the antenna area yields a peak power rating of the order of 20 kW. This data supports the proposition that the radar is a 20 kW peak power class design . This data supports the proposition that the radar is a 20 kW peak power class design.
In general, the peak power rating of an AESA is determined by the per module power rating multiplied by the number of elements, with some reduction resulting from the taper function which is used to weight power output per module, so that sidelobes and mainlobe shape can be optimised. A 20 kW peak power AESA with a 15% allowance for taper function yields for instance a per module rating, for 1100 modules, of around 21 Watts. The average power output of the radar is then limited by the duty cycle of operation, and power consumption overheads incurred by drivers, and phase and control elements in the modules. In general, the peak power rating of an AESA is determined by the per module power rating multiplied by the number of elements, with some reduction resulting from the taper function which is used to weight output power per module, so that sidelobes and mainlobe shape can be optimized. The EFSA 20 kW peak power with a 15% allowance for taper function yields for instance the rating per module, modules for 1100, of around 21 Watts. The average power output of the radar is then limited by the duty cycle of operation , and power consumption overheads incurred by drivers, and phase and control elements in the modules.
The latest engineering literature on AESAs puts the state of the art for radiated X-band power intensity at about 4 Watts/cm2 which for the X-band is around 16 Watts/module. This would put the total peak power at about 17.6 kW . The latest engineering literature on AESAs puts the state of the art for X-band radiated power intensity at about 4 Watts/cm2 which is the X-band is around 16 Watts / module. This would put the total peak power at about 17.6 kW.
Many sources available..........
Sorry, I am done playing........
Raytheon APG-79 AESA (U.S. Navy image).
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Haha. Your source is speculating on the number, from above:
The radar is known to have ~1100 modules
The radar is known to have ~1100 modules
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Haha, they're a great number of sources that state the APG-79 has 1100 T/R Modules............
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Apparently the sources make educated guesses and deliver generalities - you recognise that?Haha, they're a great number of sources that state the APG-79 has 1100 T/R Modules............
And please, you wanted specifics on capability beyond number of modules - don't try to dodge and change your argument.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Sorry, both are very reliable sources and the second even gives specifics. Further, they're a great number of sources on the web that back up the number of T/R Modules of the APG-79.............(plus the debate is about the Vixen 1000E not the APG-79)
Regardless, I have no interest is continuing to restate my position over and over again. You are free to agree or disagree with it...............
BTW Its intersting the Gripen NG has the smallest Radome Size. Yet, has more T/R Modules than fighters of the same size and even as many as some larger aircraft???
Gripen - 500mm (PS/05 family)
Miragle - 500mm (RDM,RDI, RDY)
F-20/T-50/IDF - 500mm (APG-67)
Rafale - 600mm (RBE)
MIG-29 - 624 mm (N019, N010)
F-16 - 660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80)
F-18 - 700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79)
Typhoon - 700mm (ECR-90/Captor)
F-35 - 700mm (APG-81)
F-22 - 900mm (APG-77)
F-15 - 950mm (APG-63, APG-70)
One last word the Gripen NG in my opinion will not will the MMRCA nor any major contract. As a matter of fact it may not even win any export orders at all. Which, has much to do with its performance as it compares to the competition......
IMO
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yet none of the two sources state this as fact. Obviously I can only take a statement signed by Mr Swanson (Raythein CEO) as proof. Until you can provide such a thing I would dismiss any source from you as speculation.
Your position is untenable.
No it hasn't - Rafale has the smallest of the current fighters in production.
You'll have to go over the entire list again, some are way off.
Official sources, as you demand? You haven't given an official source yet. Your only source says "The radar is known to have ~ 1100 modules". It is a secondary source, giving an approximate (& explicitly approximate - that's what the ~ means), i.e. exactly the same as the sources which you reject as inadequate for other radars.Haha, they're a great number of sources that state the APG-79 has 1100 T/R Modules............
Crusader2000
Banned Member
I said quote........
Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....
Sorry, not a hard concept...........
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Could be..............Yet, if the Gripen NG does have 1000 T/R Modules. That would be the same as the larger F-16's APG-80???Yet none of the two sources state this as fact. Obviously I can only take a statement signed by Mr Swanson (Raythein CEO) as proof. Until you can provide such a thing I would dismiss any source from you as speculation.
Again my quote.......
Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....
.
Could be as I didn't research it in any great length.............don't have the time.
No, you actually said -
You've repeated this a few times. Not "more reliable": you say, over & over again, "official". You claim that the numbers of TRMs in US radars has been officially announced, but you cannot provide the official sources you claim to exist, only approximate (& stated to be so) numbers from unofficial sources.
As already said, your position is untenable. You are inconsistent, & demand a higher standard from others than yourself.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The APG should physically be able to fit more modules than the Gripen, there may be a history behind the lower module count that I am not aware of.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Your reading what you want and discounting what you don't..........
I did in fact say......
Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....(though I admit not everytime)
Sorry, considering we only have one Gripen NG source that recently claimed the New AESA Radar will be based on the Vixen 1000E.(Which, many conclude it has 1000 Modules because of its designation) Yet, the source does not mention of the number of T/R Modules at all? I hardly see my position as "untenable" nor requesting "something more official or at least more reliable" as unreasonable!
Regardless, I see no futher reason to debate this................You can believe what you like and I will do the same.
In short agree to disagree.......
Respectfully
So? What matters is the size of the nose, not the fighter. Rafale, for example, has a small nose relative to the size of the aircraft. The Grifo radar variant for the L-159 has the same size radar antenna as the version for the larger F-5E. In each case, it's the largest that can be fitted.
The Grifo brochure is a good source of antenna sizes for several aircraft (in cm, diameter unless otherwise stated).
L-159 & F-5E: 56 x 37
Mirage III/V: 47
Mirage F.1: 52
F-7P & F-7PG: 35
F-16: 74 x 48
JF-17: 60
AMX: 38
From other sources -
F-18A/C: 68
F-15E: 90
Last edited:
You've been saying that for a few pages, but each time, you've given the lie to it.
Fine. I'll agree to be right, & you can agree to be wrong. No problem.
Scorpion82
New Member
I know you will respond with your usual thumb down, name calling bla bla, fact is you are either dishonest, ignorant or simply to pride to admit you are wrong! Over at keypublishing you argued that the F-16 has a larger nose diameter cause the aircraft is larger than the Gripen. People provided you a couple of sources which explicitely said 60 cm. Than you claimed it will be the Vixen 500 with just 500 modules, as both were mentioned in one article though not linked to each other. You had no difficulty to believe the number stands for the number of modules. People provided official, albeit sometimes older sources which clearly stated that Saab and its partners aim at a ~1000 TRM antenna for the Gripen. When the Vixen 1000E was stated explicitely you started to doubt that the number in the name stands for the number of modules, you later admitted that it might be the case, but of course you want more sources. Now running out of arguments you come up again with a wrong figure (500 mm), albeit you have been provided with a couple of sources which claim it otherwise. So you are playing by a double standard. Oh you could accept that F-16 has a larger nose diameter, what a surprise for a supporter of US weapon systems, not to say fanboy. Sorry but that is nothing else than trolling, change your argument on purpose and if you run out of arguments as you have been proven wrong a 1000 times, you simply start over again with the first argument, which was proven wrong long ago.
Hi Paul,
I can confirm that the number prefixes of the vixen fire control radar
(i.e. 500E/850E & 1000ES) refer to the number of Transmit Receive
Modules (TRMs) used on the system.
Do not hesitate to contact me over any further questions or queries you
may have on this.
Kindest Regards,
Donna McGrory
Press Officer UK & USA
SELEX Galileo
T: +44 (0)131 343 5115
F: +44 (0)131 343 5716
M: +44 (0)7793 423082
E: [email protected]
Selex GALILEO
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
Prima di stampare questa comunicazione consideratene, per favore,
l'impatto ambientale
I can confirm that the number prefixes of the vixen fire control radar
(i.e. 500E/850E & 1000ES) refer to the number of Transmit Receive
Modules (TRMs) used on the system.
Do not hesitate to contact me over any further questions or queries you
may have on this.
Kindest Regards,
Donna McGrory
Press Officer UK & USA
SELEX Galileo
T: +44 (0)131 343 5115
F: +44 (0)131 343 5716
M: +44 (0)7793 423082
E: [email protected]
Selex GALILEO
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
Prima di stampare questa comunicazione consideratene, per favore,
l'impatto ambientale
Beatmaster
New Member
So regardless or The Gripen has a market or not, how good is this plane anyway? because we got the JSF, Gripen, EF and a few more new western and non western good planes out there ready to be sold, and it seems to me that each plane/brand has its advantages and disadvantages.
So i do believe that eventually a buyer will pick the one that suits him the most.
But before you acctually buy a new plane like the gripen or jsf or ef you will need some hard data to know what you new toy is capable off right?
So i do believe that eventually a buyer will pick the one that suits him the most.
But before you acctually buy a new plane like the gripen or jsf or ef you will need some hard data to know what you new toy is capable off right?
Vendors have to respond to a capability and requirements definition which details things like support, typical mission profiles, scenarios and vignettes to establish utility, costs, training costs, support costs, through life support, life cycle upgrades, response profiles against an established "red" comparitor etc....
so yes, they have specific requirements to meet. just as a final. "top speed" requirements died with Gen 3 fighters. We now look at systems/platform/systems, capability, not platform/platform capability
- Status