The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 24 Oct 2021, 07:17

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2007, 19:56 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Not sure how accurate this will be but I believe it is a good indicator. The first figure in supposed to be the maximum range. The middle figure represents a "fighter sized" target. (source = http://www.clashofarms.com/files/Smarte ... %20Hpn.pdf )

Image

Image

Any idea which radar the SAAF Mirages came with? ... ... Anybody got better data?

Here is another source although not as comprehensive: http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/airf.pdf

There is another list somewhere, I will post it later.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2007, 20:17 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Found the data but not the link later - will post later:

**************************************************************************************************************************

Note that the following are derived from a multitude of sources, and may be understated, overstated, or just plain estimates, but these provide a pretty good picture of how well different radars detect different targets. The detection ranges for most radars listed are for 2-5m2 targets against fighters, 10-25m2 targets against large fighters, and non-stealthy targets for bombers (not sure on the actual RCS, but probably somewhere in the range of 50-100m2 for most). However, more modern systems, such as those on the F-22, and probably the Rafale and EFA 2000 as well, may be for much smaller RCS targets. I believe the F/A-22's radar range, for example, was for stealthy (<1m2 RCS) fighters.

Though not specifically stated in most cases, AWACS radar ranges are probably tracking range for most of these, as I've seen 800+ km listed for the A-50 and most of the others are distinctly shorter ranged than I would expect.




AWACS:
APS-138 (E-2): 220 km (fighter), 463 km (bomber)
APS-145 (E-2C): 267 km (small fighter), 400 km (large fighter), 565 km (bomber)
APY-1/2 (E-3 & E-767): 267 km (small fighter), 400 km (large fighter), 565 km (bomber)
Phalcon: 267 km (small fighter), 400 km (large fighter), 565 km (bomber)
Shmel 100 (A-50): 100 km (fighter), 200-300+ km (bomber)
Shmel 2 (A-50U): 230 km (MiG-21), 500 km (bomber)
MESA (Wedgetail): 350 km (fighter), 745 km (bomber)
Erieye (EMB-145 & S 100B): 225 km (small fighter), 340-350 km (large fighter), 450-480 km (bomber), 320 km (ship)


Search Ranges (for fighters unless otherwise noted):
F-15E (AN/APG-70): 300 km (mapping)
F-20 (AN/APG-67): 130 km
JAS.37 Viggen (PS-46/A): 75 km
J-7C/D (JL-7A): 70 km
J-10 (KLJ-3): 100-130 km
J-10 (Zhuk-10PD): 160 km
MiG-21PF (RP-21): 13-20 km
MiG-21SMT (RP-22 Sapfir-21): 30 km
MiG-23S (RP-22 Sapfir-21): 30 km
MiG-23 (Sapfir-23): 70 km
MiG-25 (Sapfir-25): 100 km
MiG-29 (N019 Sapfir-29): 100 km
MiG-31 (SBI-16 Zaslon): 200 km
MiG-29M/MiG-33 (Zhuk-ME): 120 km (aircraft), 250 km (ships), 150 km (ground radar)
Mirage 2000 (RDM or RDI): 100 km
Su-27SK (N001E Zhuk): 240 km (probably large fighter, maybe bomber)
Su-30MK3 (“Panda” Radar): 190 km (aircraft), 300 km (ships)

Tracking Range Against Small fighter:
EFA-2000 (ECR 90): 160-175 km
F-4E (AN/APG-30): 38 km
F-14 (AN/APG-71): 213 km (120+ km for cruise missiles)
F-15A (AN/APG-63): 110-160 km
F-15C (AN/APG-70): 195 km
F-16A/C (AN/APG-66): 50-60 km
F-16C Block 25 (AN/APG-68): 70 km
F-16C Block 50/52 (AN/APG-68(V)7): 80 km
F-16C Block 50/52 (AN/APG-68(V)9/10): 105 km (future upgrade to F-16 fleet, promising 30%+ range increase)
F-16E Block 60 (AN/APG-80): 130 km
F/A-18A (AN/APG-65): 60-65 km
F/A-18C (AN/APG-73): 72 km
F-20 (AN/APG-67): 90 km
F/A-22 (AN/APG-77): 230 km
F-7P Skybolt (Grifo 7): 55+ km
F-7MP Skybolt (Grifo 7): 55+ km
F-8IIM (Zhuk-8B): 70 km (front), 40 km (rear)
J-7: 15-55 km, depending on radar fitted
J-8II (SL-5A): 40 km
J-8B (JL-8A): 60 km
J-8H (KLJ-1): 75 km
J-10 (KLJ-3): 80-90 km
JAS.39 Gripen (PS-05): 90 km
MiG-21PF (RP-21): 7-10 km
MiG-21SMT (RP-22 Sapfir-21): 14-19 km
MiG-23S (RP-22 Sapfir-21): 19 km
MiG-23 (Sapfir-23): 55 km
MiG-25 (Sapfir-25): 47-66 km
MiG-29 (N019 Sapfir-29): 80 km
MiG-31 (SBI-16 Zaslon): 110 km
MiG-29M/MiG-33 (Zhuk-ME): 60-70 km
Mirage F.1 (Cyrano IV): 45 km
Rafale (RBE2): 100 km
Su-27 (N001 Zhuk): 80-100 km (front), 40 km (rear)
Su-30MKK (N001VE Zhuk): 110 km (front), 40 km (rear)
Su-27M/Su-35 (N011 Zhuk-27): 100 km (front), 55 km (rear)
Su-27M/Su-35 (Zhuk-PH): 165 km (front), 60 km (rear)


Tracking Range Against Bombers
EFA-2000 (ECR 90): 370 km
F-4E (AN/APG-30): 80 km
F-14 (AN/APG-71): 370 km
F-15A (AN/APG-63): 240 km
F-15C (AN/APG-70): 410 km
F-16A/C (AN/APG-66): 100-110 km
F-16C Block 25 (AN/APG-68): 130 km
F-16C Block 50/52 (AN/APG-68(V)7): 140 km
F-16C Block 50/52 (AN/APG-68(V)9/10): 185 km (future upgrade to F-16 fleet, promising 30%+ range increase)
F-16E Block 60 (AN/APG-80): 275 km
F/A-18C (AN/APG-73): 150 km
F/A-22 (AN/APG-77): 490 km
JAS.39 Gripen (PS-05): 190 km
MiG-25 (Saphir-25): 100-140 km
MiG-29 (N019 Sapfir-29): 100+ km
MiG-31 (SBI-16 Zaslon): 240 km






Also provided here is a list of estmated frontal RCS of various aircraft. Note that this is highly variable, and RCS is dependant on angle presented and external stores, among other issues. For most of these, I unfortunately do not know if it's for a "clean" or loaded aircraft, and in some cases (such as Rafale & EFA 2000), it's really just a rough estimate from unofficial sources, but these nonetheless provide an excellent starting comparison.

Estimated RCS of various aircraft (frontal view):
A-10: 25m2
B-1B: 10m2
B-52: 100m2
Cruise Missile (ie Harpoon): 0.1m2
EFA 2000: 0.1m2
F-4: 25m2
F-16C: 1.2m2 (w/ reduced RCS)
F/A-18C: 3m2, 1.2m2 w/ reduced RCS
F/A-18E: 0.1m2
F/A-22: 0.0002m2
F-35: 0.0015m2
JAS.39 Gripen: 0.5m2
MiG-21: 5m2
Mirage 2000: 2m2
Rafale: 0.1-0.3m2 (clean)
Su-30: 10-14m2
Tornado: 8m2


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2007, 07:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Elta EL/M-2035 Multi-Mode Pulse Doppler Radar
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... /lavi.html

"The radar could provide speed and position of targets in the air and on the ground, and could provide the pilot with a map of the terrain the Lavi was overflying. It could track several targets at 46 km distance in at least five air-to-air modes (automatic target acquisition, boresight, look down, look up and track while scan (TWS)). The radar had at least two air-to-ground modes (beam-sharpened ground mapping/terrain avoidance ans sea search). After the cancellation of the Lavi program the radar was offered for multi-role fighter retrofits, including the Denel Cheetah E."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2011, 23:15 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Apparently 21.86 sqm RCS for an A-A missile!!! ... ... If true I am disappointed ... ... or I am missing something BIG TIME! Somebody please help. Why design a plane with 1 sqm RCS and load it with 4 missiles totalling over 80 sqm?

Image

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2011, 12:16 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 15:11
Posts: 957
Location: Centurion, RSA
I must admit that looking through your data there seems to be some funnies.
Firstly, the Gripen makes use of a enhanced (Swedish/Erricson) version of the F16 block 52 AN/APG-68(V)9/10 radar, yet according to the data you provided it has a much reduced detection range to the F16 block 50/52. #-o
Secondly, the RCS (frontal) of the F18 E is smaller than that of an F16. Please remember that an F18 E/F is larger than the F18 AtoD and has huge square intakes. So how is it possible to have a smaller RCS??? #-o

_________________
Da-di-da-da-da


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2011, 20:54 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 21:13
Posts: 1165
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Saab also claims that the Gripen has a 0.1m2 RCS, not 0.5m2.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2011, 15:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
boertjie wrote:
I must admit that looking through your data there seems to be some funnies.
Firstly, the Gripen makes use of a enhanced (Swedish/Erricson) version of the F16 block 52 AN/APG-68(V)9/10 radar, yet according to the data you provided it has a much reduced detection range to the F16 block 50/52. #-o
Secondly, the RCS (frontal) of the F18 E is smaller than that of an F16. Please remember that an F18 E/F is larger than the F18 AtoD and has huge square intakes. So how is it possible to have a smaller RCS??? #-o


Interesting - I was not aware of the relationship between then PS-05A and APG-68. The info I copied and pasted from some site and was trying to stimulate discussion.

According to SAAB, the PS-05/a has been in service since 1992
http://www.saabgroup.com/Air/Sensor_Sys ... r/PS_05_A/

I believe the APG-68v9 came 10-15years later than 1992. I saved this from Forecast International many Xmases ago when they used to give limited free access.

Image

So the PS-05/A was derived from earlier version of the APG-68. I am not suggesting that the PS-05 has stood still … … I just believe (could be wrong) that they have taken different development paths.

If you consider that the APG-68v7 was at just over 100km for a fighter, I would not say the Gripen radar is inferior.

Again, I repeat – I am not putting the above data as something I subscribe to, but for intelligent discussion and do expect differences in opinion.

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Last edited by pngwerume on 25 Feb 2011, 01:17, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2011, 23:30 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Darren wrote:
Saab also claims that the Gripen has a 0.1m2 RCS, not 0.5m2.

According to the discussionn here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-240.html Gripens lost 4:0 in Loyal Arrow 2009 for Polish F-16s. The cited reason is the F-16s were getting the First-Look (APG-68v9) opportunity ... ... and of course RCS would have come into play too.

Image

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2011, 14:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Apparently CCTV “leaked” (hinted) that the RCS of the J-11 to be 4 sqm ... ... Yes I too you take that to be a clean configuration. Will post TV screen shots later.

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2011, 13:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 03 May 2005, 08:40
Posts: 3433
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
pngwerume wrote:
Darren wrote:
Saab also claims that the Gripen has a 0.1m2 RCS, not 0.5m2.

According to the discussionn here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-240.html Gripens lost 4:0 in Loyal Arrow 2009 for Polish F-16s. The cited reason is the F-16s were getting the First-Look (APG-68v9) opportunity ... ... and of course RCS would have come into play too.

Image


Strange that nobody was waded in to extol the virtues of either fighter? Did it happen - did the Gripens get smoked and if so, was it down to the aircraft or the competency of their aircrews?

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2011, 03:20 
Offline

Joined: 15 Feb 2010, 02:11
Posts: 495
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
H1017412 wrote:
Strange that nobody was waded in to extol the virtues of either fighter? Did it happen - did the Gripens get smoked and if so, was it down to the aircraft or the competency of their aircrews?
I know nothing about those exercises, but who wins in an air combat exercise depends quite strongly on the rules of engagement.

In the Air Combat camp held in Durban somewhere around 1997, the Impalas were armed with V3C training missiles. I think it was the first year Impalas took part, probably because F1 AZ from 1 Squadron had just been phased out. The rules of engagement were that competing aircraft would fly towards each other, and as soon as they crossed over they could engage. This worked fine when Cheetah C was competing against F1AZ, but not so well against Impalas. The Impalas beat the kak out of Cheetah C, simply because Impala are slow moving but manoeuvreable, so after the cross they did a quick 180 degree turn, pointed in the right direction, the V3C got IR threshold, and the Impala called a kill. Game over, thank you for playing.

There were some pretty puffed-up Impala pilots wandering around AFB Durban that year. Needless to say, they changed the rules for future combat exercises.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2011, 21:29 
Offline

Joined: 01 Feb 2008, 13:04
Posts: 102
Location: Sweden
H1017412 wrote:
Strange that nobody was waded in to extol the virtues of either fighter? Did it happen - did the Gripens get smoked and if so, was it down to the aircraft or the competency of their aircrews?


First of all, it was a 11 day exercise and Sweden hosted the NATO response force. Objective was to train interoperability in a gradually escalating conflict with major focus on air to ground (CAS). Swedish jets of Edition 18 flew with double drop tanks with no air refueling, had no LINK-16 for joint air picture, no AWACS suppport, and had to play theatre alot for NATO to train on. (Sweden is not in NATO). Americans, British and Swedes did much of the bombing. The Polish jets didn't drop bombs and for the most time flew clean and light A2A configs.

So if Polish jets got a 4:0 on Gripens? Well they could have but that means nothing in these circumstances. In these type of exercises you're often supposed to die depending on what role you play for that half a day. I have noticed several times that NATO like to play against much weaker red forces. Were those Gripens acting as crap 2-3 generation Russian fighters with no BVR capability while flying with 2 drop tanks and significantly boosting radar image? Poles supported by Awacs and link-16... Think they only engaged 4 times over 11 days... ? 8) Some report what is good to report and leave out the bad because they want to boost morale, recruitment, etc and possible in this case feel good about their F-16s while the rest of Europe is adding newer generation jets to inventories.

Those same Gripens train almost daily with very fine Norwegian F-16MLU's (continuously upgraded) and we have had several Norwegian air force comments in where they hint at but not straight out say how Gripen is the better plane. It takes alot to acknowledge that but now as they selected F-35 they feel more fine discussing the F-16s.

This is one Norwegian link I googled up right now http://www.nettavisen.no/side3/article2982856.ece

Quote:
(Google T) But who is the best in the Nordic air battle?
- It is difficult to determine over time. Often there is chance that decides. OK, let's put it this way: With a clean sheet and planes that are configured the same, Gripen turns tighter and climbs faster than an F-16, after all it is a newer aircraft. But experienced Norwegian pilots have also managed to outmaneuver Gripen.

- Squadron Commander Øivind «Junior» Gunnerud


Might also want to look into an exercise report from Italy, where the Hungarians in their first ever international exercise made a bit of a mark. And here you can see that NATO training commenders forced the Hungarians to not use certain tactical systems. While the blue force had all their kit including AWCAS and heavy duty jamming.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -near.html

Quote:
The training value for us was to work with that many aircraft on our radar – and even with our limited experience we could see that the Gripen radar is fantastic. We would see the others at long ranges, we could discriminate all the individual aircraft even in tight formations and using extended modes. The jamming had almost no effect on us – and that surprised a lot of people.”

“Other aircraft couldn’t see us – not on radar, not visually – and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill on an F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot.”

Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors – but flying like that, ‘free hunting’, we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out.”


The Czechs?

Quote:
211th tactical squadron from the Czech Air Force with their Gripen fighters received the prestigious Silver Tiger Award to the best squadron during the recently held NATO Tiger Meet 2010.

“Our training program and our skills, in conjunction with Gripen has allowed us to win this important award. The reason why Gripen was a star of Tiger Meet is its ability to solve the tasks at the longest possible distance – without a direct dogfight with the enemy” said the Commander of 211th Tactical Squadron at Čáslav Air Force Base, Major Jaroslav Míka in Czech Television.


http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen- ... iger-Meet/

Info in that list above is wrong regarding the PS-05/A. New very long range A2A modes has been added since Edition 19 among things as is the rcs number way too high for the 39C. Rcs is also further reduced with the use of better designed weapons like IRIS-T and eventually METEOR vs the old American ones.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2011, 10:02 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011, 14:21
Posts: 2442
Location: England
Knightone, thank you for the clarity of your input. :smt023

It must also be kept in mind that the Polish Air Force is gradually working up to NATO standards. For decades they were given second rate aircraft by their Soviet masters whilst still being a member of the Warsaw Pact (Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries). Their recent acquisition of F-16's is part of the ongoing modernisation of Polish Forces.

The Rules of Engagement when conducting 'war games' (Kriegspiel in German) often gives a skewed picture of events. The idea is to give the weaker side the opportunity to train and improve their standards. Funny as it may sound but this is vital to improving inter-operability in a complex organisation such as NATO.

Don't be blinded by 'war game' statistics.

_________________
Photos on flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tallyho2015/albums


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Airborne Radars
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2011, 14:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2006, 20:05
Posts: 453
Location: 44.634171°, -93.129741°
Tally-ho wrote:
The idea is to give the weaker side the opportunity to train and improve their standards.


Makes sense. Thanks.

_________________
In God I trust, everyone else bring your data!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group