Interim Red Air Aggressor Training

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

It’s a shame that the RAF won’t stump up the cash to pay for a more capable platform. Alas, with the money on offer in the contract, you get what you pay for.

At least it has SA being able to search, track and target along with threat reaction (slowly). It seems like an ideal interim to me given what the alternates could have been.
.

[Bob Viking]

Radar

That 30NM radar range is going to be really useful against Typhoon. So, bearing in mind the L-159 can’t simulate a HFF and it’s radar won’t get anything until the host aircraft is already dead, it’s not really much of a step up from a Hawk T1.

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I think the ambitions of F16s or Mirages to fight against mean that this would be a distinctly underwhelming new Red Air platform.

BV

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

That 30NM radar range is going to be really useful against Typhoon. So, bearing in mind the L-159 can’t simulate a HFF and it’s radar won’t get anything until the host aircraft is already dead, it’s not really much of a step up from a Hawk T1.

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I think the ambitions of F16s or Mirages to fight against mean that this would be a distinctly underwhelming new Red Air platform.

BV

I hear you BV but again there's an aspiration vs budget imbalance, optimistically we should look at this through an interim requirement lens ahead of the main effort. We all know that a ex-EPAF MLU Viper would be ideal but policy issues, even if the budget was there, would likely preclude this (and ex-Netz aircraft) in the near term. I am also not convinced there would be much appetite from the UK (purely from a perceived presentational angle) for F1 of any flavour even though once suitably upgraded with certain capabilities it would more than meet HFF presentations. If the future aim is one where live should validate synthetic then, perhaps, there may be a time where less (live flying) is more (capability) but sadly I can see this as another means to reduce the fiscal resource that's available. Going to be an interesting 3+ years.....

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

That 30NM radar range is going to be really useful against Typhoon. So, bearing in mind the L-159 can’t simulate a HFF and it’s radar won’t get anything until the host aircraft is already dead, it’s not really much of a step up from a Hawk T1.

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I think the ambitions of F16s or Mirages to fight against mean that this would be a distinctly underwhelming new Red Air platform.

BV

I agree with your sentiment about the platform, but that’s a function of the MoD not properly funding this contract to allow for a better capability.

Are you sure you’re correct regarding the 30nm range radar?

[Bob Viking]

Foghorn

I can’t swear to it. That was off google!

BV

[Just This Once...]

Radar range sounds about right but not against Typhoon's reduced RCS. If you spin the Typhoon 3D RCS sphere to the typical forward aspects I suspect that it's predicted contact range will be a lot shorter!

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Just This Once...

Radar range sounds about right but not against Typhoon's reduced RCS. If you spin the Typhoon 3D RCS sphere to the typical forward aspects I suspect that it's predicted contact range will be a lot shorter!

Unless you have the systems peak power, centre frequency, antenna gain, and the MDS you are all guessing against any RCS target platform including Typhoon in typical two bag fit.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

Unless you have the systems peak power, centre frequency, antenna gain, and the MDS you are all guessing against any RCS target platform including Typhoon in typical two bag fit.

Exactly this!

[Just This Once...]

Not really. Fog, if you want the training numbers run the question through the tame analysts in the AWC via your usual Tactics 'front door'. They can whip-up a quick model for you against the measured RCS of the platform in a representative fit.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Just This Once...

Not really. Fog, if you want the training numbers run the question through the tame analysts in the AWC via your usual Tactics 'front door'. They can whip-up a quick model for you against the measured RCS of the platform in a representative fit.

Indulge me for a moment and tell me what your 30nm is based on, just curious as to your benchmark.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by Just This Once...

Not really. Fog, if you want the training numbers run the question through the tame analysts in the AWC via your usual Tactics 'front door'. They can whip-up a quick model for you against the measured RCS of the platform in a representative fit.

That’s not what DuckDodgers said though was it. He said if you don’t know what the various technical numbers are then one is guessing at the range on this forum. Unless of course, JTO, you’re also an analyst at the ASWC!?

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

That’s not what DuckDodgers said though was it. He said if you don’t know what the various technical numbers are then one is guessing at the range on this forum. Unless of course, JTO, you’re also an analyst at the ASWC!?

It appears the glorious 30nm figure quoted by our experts here appears to be the Grifo 7 version that’s in the Pakistani Chengdu J-7 installation 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ which is at best what, 80 Watt average power with an Az/El volume of +/- 30 degs 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

It appears the glorious 30nm figure quoted by our experts here appears to be the Grifo 7 version that’s in the Pakistani Chengdu J-7 installation 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ which is at best what, 80 Watt average power with an Az/El volume of +/- 30 degs 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦‍♂️

30nm does appear to be a little short!?

[Bob Viking]

Grifo L

The attached link suggests a range of 74km. Not much better than the original 30NM I suggested.

BV

http://cmano-db.com/pdf/sensor/5421/