OT: AESA radar ready for tranche 3 production on Eurofighter

[TucksonSonny]

The Euroradar CAESAR active electronically scanned array (AESA) variant of the successful CAPTOR radar system has successfully completed a flight test programme in the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft. The flights were conducted by EADS from the Manching facility in Germany.

http://www.eurofighter.com/news/20070510CAESAR.asp

http://www.airpower.at/news06/0922_captor-e/index.html

Anyway it was about time! ;)

[Pilotasso]

I've got a guy at F-16.net claiming the Eurofighter is obsolete and that heat seekers like the Sidewinder would zap it at 40km because its not stealthy. lol

Check this guy (probably foying too much F4)

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5525&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=345&sid=ec7b5f9c6f5c38b944f14f16a85aa3fe

[TucksonSonny]

I've got a guy at F-16.net claiming the Eurofighter is obsolete and that heat seekers like the Sidewinder would zap it at 40km because its not stealthy. lol

Check this guy (probably foying too much F4)

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5525&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=345&sid=ec7b5f9c6f5c38b944f14f16a85aa3fe

 

He said indeed “A non AESA, non Meteor equiped Typhoon is obsolete”

 

I have also to agree with him that today a non AESA becomes obsolete.

 

Thus it was about time to get CAESAR active electronically scanned array (AESA) upgrade on the typhoon (called also CAPTOR-E). ;)

 

 

Meteor will zap his F-16C at 100km anyway (sidewinders will be not a problem )

Italian F-16’s have already proven to be obsolete if the typhoon was playing with them in that same airspace without AESA and even with the older CAPTOR radar.

[GGTharos]

LOL. It might not be impossible for an AIM-9X to reach 40km on a high altitude shot (it's not very draggy when going straight) if lofted ... but I can't think of any way it could keep up with any maneuver since those little control surfaces would have to turn into airbrakes in order to turn it in one direction or another.

 

Funny thing on a boost - sustain motor too ... it should be all boost. Did he forget about drag in his computation?

[Force_Feedback]

Down there, if you say the USS Enterprise will whoop F-16's ass, you get a ban firstly, and then a 15 page thread with everyone agreeing that nothing can beat the F-16, EVER!!

 

And 1.5 mil euros for only the dish is expensive, bet the Russians have nearly the same stuff for 500k

[TucksonSonny]

Also on the f16.net people were talking about the F-15C not having a chance against their all mighty F-16 in dogfight.:D

What would happen if you post an F-22 thread on that forum?:D

[D-Scythe]

Funny thing on a boost - sustain motor too ... it should be all boost. Did he forget about drag in his computation?

 

Why all boost? I would've thought it would be advantageous to have some "sustain," so the X-ray can retain use of its TVC longer.

[GGTharos]

Because the X's purpose in life is to blow up things WVR - this means you want it to get to peak speed /NOW/ and a boost-sustain model doesn't do that.

 

You want it to kill that bandit right then there, because if you give him 2 more seconds, he might het enough turn to launch on you, or your wingman. It's all about what you want to do with it.

 

The TVC is only useful when coming off the rail - after you're settled on course to the bandit I don't see why it would be needed.

[TucksonSonny]

Even with an ET launch with minizap (default settings) I got only 39km

BTW, ET has about 154kg propellant mass

[GGTharos]

You bring up a good point.

So - let's look at the ET. It's a big, heavy, draggy missile. It's rocket weight to missile mass ratio is about the same as the 9's ...

 

Now try doing this: Set minimum speed for the missile in MZ to the same speed as your target.

Leave everything else default, and run this forthe ET, then the 9 (actually for the 9 you need to increase controlled flight time to say 60 sec).

The 9 could -potentially- reach 40km there. But again it's the kinda max range at which it's mostly useless and un-interesting.

 

Also: Try reducing the wingside aera by half for the AIM-9M (to sort of simulate the reduced wing area of the AIM-9X) ... 8km of difference. :)

[Force_Feedback]

The info on the aim-9 is not correct in minizap, nor is the 4.4 sec burn time, nor is the side profile of the r-73. Just tweak it to what sources say, not to what the default settings are.

[D-Scythe]

The info on the aim-9 is not correct in minizap, nor is the 4.4 sec burn time, nor is the side profile of the r-73. Just tweak it to what sources say, not to what the default settings are.

 

4.4 seems to be okay to me? In the AIM-9X videos, the MK-36 motor (the same one used in the AIM-9M) burns out ~4-5 seconds after launch.

[GGTharos]

The 9L motor burns for some 5 sec. The M's has received 'incremental upgrades' from the L's motor, and further upgrades have been made during the M's lifetime.