Saab JAS 39 Gripen Info # 2

[Scooter]

I think Gripen's nose diameter easily permits such number of T/R modules, is there any reason why should they be going for less?

Well, I wouldn't think so..........Yet, there could be reason I am unaware of. For example the RCAR and SABR designed as retro fits in the F-16. Have less T/R Modules than the APG-80. Which, I believe is because they use exsiting component that have less power.

[djcross]

Availability of electric power, cooling and hydraulics becomes a major issue for any airplane with a single smallish engine like Gripen, Tejas or T-50. You simply cannot extract lots of power for electrics, cooling and hydraulics and have enough thrust to "run with the big dogs". Add a big power/cooling hungry radar and something else suffers...EW, communications, cockpit pressurization, engine thrust, Etc.

[ante_climax]

This may be the reason why a higher thrust engine was chosen for the Block 60/F 16 IN. The same is true in the case of the Gripen NG. (And may be one of the reasons why the Tejas is in for a bigger engine)

[Scooter]

Availability of electric power, cooling and hydraulics becomes a major issue for any airplane with a single smallish engine like Gripen, Tejas or T-50. You simply cannot extract lots of power for electrics, cooling and hydraulics and have enough thrust to "run with the big dogs". Add a big power/cooling hungry radar and something else suffers...EW, communications, cockpit pressurization, engine thrust, Etc.

Good point................I assume smaller T/R Modules require less power???

[Scooter]

Availability of electric power, cooling and hydraulics becomes a major issue for any airplane with a single smallish engine like Gripen, Tejas or T-50. You simply cannot extract lots of power for electrics, cooling and hydraulics and have enough thrust to "run with the big dogs". Add a big power/cooling hungry radar and something else suffers...EW, communications, cockpit pressurization, engine thrust, Etc.

So, are you saying that early F-16's would be equipped with the smaller RCAR and SABR. Because their engines don't make the greater power of the F-16E (blk60) equipped with the AN/APG-80???

[obligatory]

Bob Mason, Selex Galileo's executive vice-president, radar and advanced targeting,
says the Vixen 1000E's advantage comes from the use of a swashplate mounting,
which enables the active array to be rotated by +/-100 degree.
This beats a fixed AESA during beyond visual-range and off-boresight missile firings,
and while acquiring synthetic aperture radar imagery, he says.
"We will be delivering a prototype this year for them to fly,
and then will upgrade it over the next 18 months."

I'm also worried about the cooling, which i'm under the impression is the biggest challenge with a fighter size AESA radar.
So i'm surprised they keep the swashplate to improve performance, that volume could otherwise have been used for cooling elements.

OTOH i got so impressed when the engineers pulled the +40% fuel stunt so presumably they have some new trick.
Speaking of which, how is it going with Gallium nitride ?
Check out this interesting link, the latter part of page 3 and page 4.
http://www.forecastinternational.com/notable/isr1.pdf

[Rogerout]

Availability of electric power, cooling and hydraulics becomes a major issue for any airplane with a single smallish engine like Gripen, Tejas or T-50. You simply cannot extract lots of power for electrics, cooling and hydraulics and have enough thrust to "run with the big dogs". Add a big power/cooling hungry radar and something else suffers...EW, communications, cockpit pressurization, engine thrust, Etc.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelati...2_GEengine.htm

The F414G uses a similar architecture to the popular F414-GE-400 engine powering the F/A-18 Super Hornet, with minor changes to the alternator for added aircraft power, and modified Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) software for enhanced single-engine operation.

It seems as they have thought of the electric power issue. Gripen also already uses fuel for cooling of electronics and other systems, it is very possible that it will be sufficient for a quite powerful AESA. Newer modules are also supposed to demand less cooling.

[djcross]

So, are you saying that early F-16's would be equipped with the smaller RCAR and SABR. Because their engines don't make the greater power of the F-16E (blk60) equipped with the AN/APG-80???

F100s and F110s are not small engines like an F414.

Remember, the radar retrofit cost is relatively minor compared to the cost of reworking the fuselage to retrofit upgraded electrics and cooling.

[flex297]

Well, I wouldn't think so..........Yet, there could be reason I am unaware of. For example the RCAR and SABR designed as retro fits in the F-16. Have less T/R Modules than the APG-80. Which, I believe is because they use exsiting component that have less power.

Well, I have run thru few websites yesterday but at the moment the 1000E stays very elusive. 500E is well covered and few sources confirmed that the number of modules is *approximately 500*. An 850E model is also being mentioned from time to time..

I think that the 1000E was hastily assambled together after Selex has learned about Gripen's fiasco with Thales, it was a very good and quick move which will bring them a serious load of cash. In few weeks the websites might get updated with latest info, then we will know more.

I think it would be logical to assume that the thing indeed has 1000 modules (or close to that number, f.e. 960) but I stay open to new arguments regarding this.

[swerve]

When Vixen 500E was first announced, Selex press releases stated that its architecture was scalable, & that radars with different size arrays (750 & 1000 elements were mentioned by Selex at the time, & called 750E & 1000E) could be offered, tailored to aircraft. This is not a new idea: Galileo Avionica (i.e. Selex) has done it for years with the Grifo radar, offering antennae tailored for a variety of aircraft. Other things are also tailored to the aircraft model, e.g. power output. Vixen is being offered to much the same market, & is similarly described as a family of radars. It's therefore logical to expect a wide range of radar powers & array sizes in the original design brief.

The 850E was shown at LAAD, Rio de Janeiro, in April. Photographs have been posted here. I'd not heard of it before that, but I'd speculate that it's just the right size for a particular aircrafts nose. I don't know which one, but from the pictures, one can see that the 850E array is wider than it's high - maybe F-16 retrofit? It must be the biggest market out there.

The swash-plate design has been public for a couple of years. It's proposed as an option for a CAPTOR-based AESA for Typhoon. As Selex has a majority stake in CAPTOR, it's logical to adapt it (mostly, scaling down) for Vixen. Work could have been going on since before it was announced as an option for Typhoon.

In other words, I don't think the 1000E is a hasty lash-up: it's been in the background all along, & the swash-plate version is an option that's probably been worked on for two years, maybe more. I would expect SAAB to have been offered both swash-plate & fixed array versions - after all, they're not an OTS customer: they're providing input to the final version, from their (Ericsson) in-house radar people.

[Scooter]

Well, I have run thru few websites yesterday but at the moment the 1000E stays very elusive. 500E is well covered and few sources confirmed that the number of modules is *approximately 500*. An 850E model is also being mentioned from time to time..

I think that the 1000E was hastily assambled together after Selex has learned about Gripen's fiasco with Thales, it was a very good and quick move which will bring them a serious load of cash. In few weeks the websites might get updated with latest info, then we will know more.

I think it would be logical to assume that the thing indeed has 1000 modules (or close to that number, f.e. 960) but I stay open to new arguments regarding this.

Exactly, I heard 500, 750, 850, 1000, etc. etc. Which, is why I said I needed an official source or at very least a reliable one. Before I would concede that it in fact had "1000". Sorry, I can't see why "some" consider that so unreasonable????

Really, at this stage all we know for sure is the Gripen NG AESA Radar. Will have the frontend of a Selex (Model unkown?) and the Rearend of the SAAB's PS-05/A................

Yet, some are claiming it has this many "Modules" and it can do this or that???

Personally, I will have "no problem" conceding that it has "1000 T/R Modules" when the information becomes public. Yet, I am not going to accept every opinion until such time it is supported by fact..............

[Scorpion82]

Exactly, I heard 500, 750, 850, 1000, etc. etc. Which, is why I said I needed an official source or at very least a reliable one. Before I would concede that it in fact had "1000". Sorry, I can't see why "some" consider that so unreasonable????

Really, at this stage all we know for sure is the Gripen NG AESA Radar. Will have the frontend of a Selex (Model unkown?) and the Rearend of the SAAB's PS-05/A................

Yet, some are claiming it has this many "Modules" and it can do this or that???

Personally, I will have "no problem" conceding that it has "1000 T/R Modules" when the information becomes public. Yet, I am not going to accept every opinion until such time it is supported by fact..............

You obviously have a problem. Countless sources has been provided stating that an AESA aboard the Gripen would have 1000 TRMs, that the Vixen XXX stands for the number of modules has been stated as well. Despite all this you still wait for another source? Sorry but that's ridiculous!

[Scooter]

You obviously have a problem. Countless sources has been provided stating that an AESA aboard the Gripen would have 1000 TRMs, that the Vixen XXX stands for the number of modules has been stated as well. Despite all this you still wait for another source? Sorry but that's ridiculous!

Then provide the source...............

[21Ankush]

When Vixen 500E was first announced, Selex press releases stated that its architecture was scalable, & that radars with different size arrays (750 & 1000 elements were mentioned by Selex at the time, & called 750E & 1000E) could be offered, tailored to aircraft. This is not a new idea: Galileo Avionica (i.e. Selex) has done it for years with the Grifo radar, offering antennae tailored for a variety of aircraft. Other things are also tailored to the aircraft model, e.g. power output. Vixen is being offered to much the same market, & is similarly described as a family of radars. It's therefore logical to expect a wide range of radar powers & array sizes in the original design brief.

The 850E was shown at LAAD, Rio de Janeiro, in April. Photographs have been posted here. I'd not heard of it before that, but I'd speculate that it's just the right size for a particular aircrafts nose. I don't know which one, but from the pictures, one can see that the 850E array is wider than it's high - maybe F-16 retrofit? It must be the biggest market out there.

The swash-plate design has been public for a couple of years. It's proposed as an option for a CAPTOR-based AESA for Typhoon. As Selex has a majority stake in CAPTOR, it's logical to adapt it (mostly, scaling down) for Vixen. Work could have been going on since before it was announced as an option for Typhoon.

In other words, I don't think the 1000E is a hasty lash-up: it's been in the background all along, & the swash-plate version is an option that's probably been worked on for two years, maybe more. I would expect SAAB to have been offered both swash-plate & fixed array versions - after all, they're not an OTS customer: they're providing input to the final version, from their (Ericsson) in-house radar people.

There is a new name for the Selex AESA that Saab is offering with its Gripen IN and Gripen BR..I can't recall it, but it was mentioned in last week's AW&ST and it wasn't the Vixen 1000E.

[nhampton]

Simple request..............I asked you to back up your claim with a source. Instead you reply with sarcasm and name calling.



Typical......

Listen Scooter you are arguing over nothing here. The real knock is not in size. It is the fact that the US is now on it's second generation fighter based AESA. They have a 15 year head start and billions of development dollars advantage on the competition. Plus its not just the hardware, its the thousands of lines of code that have been written that allow you fully realize AESAs advantages. None of which the Euros or Russians currently have and by the time they actually field a combat worthy AESA the US will have moved the goal posts yet again because rest assured they will not stop their ongoing development. That is what matters. Not who is making it and the number of modules. That is when everything is equal. Clearly that is not the case here.

[SpudmanWP]

3rd gen US AESA

1st Gen = F-15Cs from Alaska (APG-63(V)2)
2nd Gen = F-22 (APG-77), F-18 (APG-79), APG-80, SABR, RACR
3rd Gen = F-35 (APG-81)

[swerve]

There is a new name for the Selex AESA that Saab is offering with its Gripen IN and Gripen BR..I can't recall it, but it was mentioned in last week's AW&ST and it wasn't the Vixen 1000E.

ES05 (derived from PS05, no doubt) Raven? That's mentioned in the Flight article linked to earlier.

[Sign]

Listen Scooter you are arguing over nothing here. The real knock is not in size. It is the fact that the US is now on it's second generation fighter based AESA. They have a 15 year head start and billions of development dollars advantage on the competition. Plus its not just the hardware, its the thousands of lines of code that have been written that allow you fully realize AESAs advantages. None of which the Euros or Russians currently have and by the time they actually field a combat worthy AESA the US will have moved the goal posts yet again because rest assured they will not stop their ongoing development. That is what matters. Not who is making it and the number of modules. That is when everything is equal. Clearly that is not the case here.

Nokia, Motorola, Nokia has done mobiles for at least 20 gen. And still Apple beats them all in its fist gen.

Many of the euro companies have fielded the latest of AESA:s in other systems that are sea- land- based, and also airbased(Erieye, gradualy uppgraded for 4-5 gen).

In the fighter area, there have been demonstrator programs for many generations..the only problem is that no goverment wanted the Aesa's fielded until now, because of the newer PESA radars of euroland..

[SpudmanWP]

The reason that nobody else has had Airborne AESA is two-fold:
1. They did not have to manufacuting ability for the small scale involved in the modules.
2. They did not have to money to research that ability.

fyi, The reason that I place the APG-81 as a 3rd gen is:
1. Small, snap-in, size of modules
2. Multiple channels per module

[flex297]

Listen Scooter you are arguing over nothing here. The real knock is not in size. It is the fact that the US is now on it's second generation fighter based AESA. They have a 15 year head start and billions of development dollars advantage on the competition. Plus its not just the hardware, its the thousands of lines of code that have been written that allow you fully realize AESAs advantages. None of which the Euros or Russians currently have and by the time they actually field a combat worthy AESA the US will have moved the goal posts yet again because rest assured they will not stop their ongoing development. That is what matters. Not who is making it and the number of modules. That is when everything is equal. Clearly that is not the case here.

Load of crap. If US radar would indeed be 15 years ahead, not a single non-US radar would ever sell. In the time of globalization there is not a single area of industry where any country is even 5 years ahead of others, let alone 15.

[swerve]

Nokia, Motorola, Nokia has done mobiles for at least 20 gen. And still Apple beats them all in its fist gen. .....

In UI, i.e. Apples forte for many years. The phone isn't superior in other respects.

BTW, Mr. Hampton clearly hasn't noticed that for some applications, the USA is actually buying European AESA radars. Vixen 500E is being bought for border patrol aircraft, & Seaspray 7500E is on USCG patrol aircraft (the Seaspray family is also on order for at least three navies).

There is no European equivalent to the US 1st generation fighter AESA, because it was thought too expensive, heavy & power-hungry, & any performance advantages were not thought great enough to be worth making operational radars. Instead, European firms built testbeds of that generation & worked on them, while the USA fitted all of 18 aircraft with radars . . . . Cost-effective? Or just a very expensive test programme? I think one can judge its success by how many were built.

[SpudmanWP]

F-15Cs in Alaska got their AESAs in 2000, not quite 15 years

When will Eurocards get AESA in squadron level units?

[Sintra]

The reason that nobody else has had Airborne AESA is two-fold:
1. They did not have to manufacuting ability for the small scale involved in the modules.
2. They did not have to money to research that ability.

fyi, The reason that I place the APG-81 as a 3rd gen is:
1. Small, snap-in, size of modules
2. Multiple channels per module

1º
The MMICS produced by UMS or by the the "old" Qinetiq foundry in GB are way smaller than the ones used in the AN/APG-77 (or the AN/APG-80) for more than half a decade. The specifications are PUBLIC (for UMS, you just have to go to their site), that includes the sizes and consumed energy.
Selex has had acess to MMICS coming from three sources, the two mentioned above and BAE Systems foundry, the old Lockheed Martin foundry that was sold to the Brits in 2005. That foundry as a huge backlog of ordered MMICS for (guess what) the AN/APG-81. Those same MMICS were made available to Selex right in 2006.

Both the Japanese through Melco (Mitsubishi F-2), Sweeden (Erieye) have airborne radars...

2º
Now whats that on top of HMS Daring?

3º
The first AESA Euro-canard delivered to sqn level will be by 2012

ps- Apple phone is a disaster

[swerve]

F-15Cs in Alaska got their AESAs in 2000, not quite 15 years

When will Eurocards get AESA in squadron level units?

Yep - AESAs of a technological level everyone over here decided to leapfrog for fighter radars. Too expensive, heavy, power-hungry, etc.. All of 18 were fitted, which doesn't exactly indicate that the USAF thought that radar was going anywhere either, except maybe as an operational testbed. BTW, Japan fielded a fighter AESA at the same time, using Japanese MMICs.

What's that thing on top of the Swedish S-100B Argus, & when did it become operational? What's that thing on the masthead of De Zeven Provincien & her sister ships, & how long's it been there? Which firm, in which country, did Japan buy technology from a few years ago to improve the Japanese AESA radars on JMSDF ships, despite a strong preference in the Japanese military for buying American?

[SpudmanWP]

We were discussing AIRBORNE fighter AESA sets due to the requirements of small size and power usage.

[nhampton]

Load of crap. If US radar would indeed be 15 years ahead, not a single non-US radar would ever sell. In the time of globalization there is not a single area of industry where any country is even 5 years ahead of others, let alone 15.

Have you noticed that all the non AESA equipped fighter competing in India and Brazil are scrambling to field AESA radars? No you would not have appreciated that subtlety would you.

The reason that nobody else has had Airborne AESA is two-fold:
1. They did not have to manufacuting ability for the small scale involved in the modules.
2. They did not have to money to research that ability.

Well done. You get it.
Add to that all the back end development (coding) work and the learning curve in discovering how to employ the AESA and you have a huge lead.

while the USA fitted all of 18 aircraft with radars . . . . Cost-effective? Or just a very expensive test programme? I think one can judge its success by how many were built.

Swerve! Here I thought you put me on ignore. What happened? Looking to be educated? Well here is the skinny. APG-63v2 is currently fitted to 18 very front line F-15Cs at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. In case you didnt know it these F-15s are part of a composite wing of F-15s and F-22s stationed much closer to where the Air Force thinks they would be needed should there be a problem in the Pacific. You see times have changed. The pac Rim is where all the action is nowadays. They only fitted 18 of them not because there is anything wrong with the v2, quite the contrary, advances by Raytheon have enabled them to improve upon the APG-63 v2 so that they now can offer the v3 which has v2 software coupled with the hardware advances that went into the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block II’s AN/APG-79 AESA radar. It's a simple question of constant product improvement and it further proves my point. The US has a huge head start both in EMD and also in actual use and the development of tactics to take advantage of the capabilities of the radar.

Oh one other point of clarification. Even though the APG-63 V2 was the world’s first AESA radar system to be operationally deployed in a fighter aircraft I do believe the APG-77 on the Raptor was first flown back in the mid 90s, hence 15 years.

Oh by the way we where discussing AESA fighter radars.

[Rogerout]

Oh by the way we where discussing AESA fighter radars.

This is the JAS 39 Gripen thread and AESAs from the same company, such as Erieye and Giraffe, is perfectly relevant. By the the way, do you know what country has chosen Sea Giraffe for some of its latest line of warships?

You, on the other hand, is obviously trolling.

[nhampton]

This is the JAS 39 Gripen thread and AESAs from the same company, such as Erieye and Giraffe, is perfectly relevant. By the the way, do you know what country has chosen Sea Giraffe for some of its latest line of warships?

You, on the other hand, is obviously trolling.

Not for the last dozen or so posts. Get your head out of the sand it really doesn't matter what they come up with. Sure they may get lucky and design AESA that is comparable with 3rd generation American designs on a shoe string budget. Sure they won't run into any developmental or funding problems that push IOC well past 2012. Sure the Americans will not continue to develop their AESA radars. Sure all the selection panels will discount the Selex offering's lack of maturity.

Yup the tooth fairy is coming too.

[Rogerout]

nhampton, I wont reply to you and help you destroy this thread further. Its like arguing with a mule, as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58

[nhampton]

nhampton, I wont reply to you and help you destroy this thread further. Its like arguing with a mule, as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58

Having trouble debating the facts? Care to counter at least on thing I wrote or do you realize that you know I am right yet you hate to admit it.