Indonesia Indonesian Air Force, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Udara (TNI-AU)

[Lordimperator]

An example of Rafale Radar ToT to India

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595320391806828544

 

[Madokafc]

Don't even need to bring up US MICs, the Europeans were even behind the Japanese when it comes to active phased array developments. It is only recent that they have caught up to the deficit from the 90s. They are in no way matched to contemporary US technology.

Though, this again doesn't mean that it applies to each individual examples, since fighter radar capabilities are limited by various other factors apart from the available techonlogy.

Japan is one of the first user of missile with AESA radar seeker AAM 4, and they are the first user of active AESA Naval radar

 

[Madokafc]

An example of Rafale Radar ToT to India

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595320391806828544

Don't know why, i am seeing so many Xavier look a like in this photo

 

[R4duga]

An example of Rafale Radar ToT to India

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595320391806828544

like i said previously bout "Dual Use Technology", bharat already had experienced in those field even though it was for commercial/civil product.

when i think about another company that can be made for example in indonesia, the closest one is probably Polytron.....

 

[Windchime]

In the beginning, rbe2 radar uses american-made modules. Due to underpowered, then replaced with European-made modules

Also due to pressure from uae to upgrade the radar in 2011.

Uae requested an upgrade because rbe2 performance at that time was below apg-80 (f-16).

And finally in 2021, UAE bought 80 Rafales, this indicates the rafale radar performance is superior to F-16 (APG 80).

Apg 80 far outperformed apg 83, Which is hanwha radar "target".

Apg 83 detection range at 1 m² rcs = 47 NM (87 KM)
Apg 80 detection range at 1 m² rcs = 64 NM (118 Km)

In the end, based on this perspective.

RBE2 > APG 80 > APG 83 < Hanwha Radar

Yeah, amd from that, how could you deduce RBE2>= Hanhwa AESA? Also that APG-83 benchmark is due to the fact that KF-21 was devloped with a goal of its "overall performance being better than KF-16". On another interview it was mentioned that the Hanhwa AESA is superior to APG-81 in terms of hw.

Oncemore, means jackshit if you don't know all those radar performance figures I've mentioned.

 

[Gary]

So anyways, a bit of research here about radars.

AESA is a method of beam steering, and capabilities vary from each other. Just like how the APG-68v(9) will demolish the performance parameters of RP-21 Sapfir while both are technically mechanically scanned radar. There's a lot of factors and numbers (which is mostly classified) that determines radar performance, but in response to Bon Plan claiming that their antenna gave them 100% increase in performance in contrast to U.S's 20%. Here's what I found.

One of the key components of AESA radar are the design of its antenna, There's a lot to choose from,
Performance wise:

Radar Fundamentals (Part II )

Introduction to Antenna Antenna is an electrical device which converts electric power into radio waves, and vice versa, antenna are used not only on radar but also on jammers, RWR and communicat…

basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com

Older ESA radars uses the Patch antenna, because its easy and cheap to manufacture, the downside is low bandwidth = decrease in resolution.

Older ESA radar like the IRBIS-E PESA uses Patch antenna

The more advanced one currently in use in Western air forces are the Vivaldi Notch antenna which has wide bandwidth, higher gain and high directivity = Ultra High Resolution,. In addition to better LPI, ECCM

APG-81, 77, 77V(1) and HANWHA AESA all uses this model antenna

APG-81

KFX AESA

So how is it that Rafale RBE2 AA outperform US made TR module in the first place ?

Most likely because the one that US supplied to France is the older model notch model antenna module. Even with similar design the Vivaldi Notch antenna has difference between generations.

in 2005-2006, the only AESA radar the US field is the APG-63v(2) and the custom built APG-80 , the later models like the APG-77, 81, 77v(1), 83 comes later.

So yeah, most likely not because the French suddenly out engineer the U.S. The RBE-2 AA AESA is Europe first attempt at airborne X band AESA radar, while the U.S has been fielding it into the 3rd generation by now. Its pretty clear who has the actual edge by now.

Here's a nice article on just how much ahead the U.S is vs everybody else when it comes to their radar.

Does the F-35/F-22 have any advantages in avionics over that of the Su-57 besides the AN/AAQ-37? Whose radar is more powerful, Belka, AN/...

Answer (1 of 9): F-35’s DAS is only an extreme example where there’s absolutely no equivalent, even keeping that aside almost every avionics on F-22 and F-35 is vastly more capable than Su-57. Both APG-77v1 and APG-81 are bigger than Su-57’s N036 radar (~2,000 & 1,676 vs. 1,550 TRMs on N036) and ...

www.quora.com

What is the radar used in F-35? How is it advanced compared to that of Rafale?

Answer: The F-35 uses APG-81, a 3rd generation AESA radar – which is an advancement to F-22’s original APG-77 radar. It is essentially the most advanced Fire-control radar on a Fighter. While Rafale uses RBE2-AA, France’s 1st generation AESA radar. For starters the F-35’s radar is almost twice t...

www.quora.com

The closest competitor to the APG-81 is the ECRS Mk2 which is not yet fielded until at least mid decade

And it doesn't help for anyone because as advanced the APG-81 is, its slotted for retirement this decade, replaced by the even more advanced GaN APG-85. Which again makes everyone left behind.

AN/APG-85, the new generation radar developed for the F-35

Northrop Grumman Corporation is developing the AN/APG-85, an advanced active electronically scanning radar (AESA) for the F-35 Lightning II, which will replace

www.aviacionline.com

 

[norman88]

Yeah, amd from that, how could you deduce RBE2>= Hanhwa AESA? Also that APG-83 benchmark is due to the fact that KF-21 was devloped with a goal of its "overall performance being better than KF-16". On another interview it was mentioned that the Hanhwa AESA is superior to APG-81 in terms of hw.

Oncemore, means jackshit if you don't know all those radar performance figures I've mentioned.

First of all, maximum detection of hanhwa radar to be around 200 km (most likely 30 square foot target).

Highly unlikely is 10 square foot target, which makes it equal to APG 77.

Maximum detection and tracking of RBE2 PESA radar is 75 NM (138 KM) and 60 NM (111 KM).

AESA radar makes the range extended by over 50%.

It makes the radar detection range is 207 KM (138+50% = 138+69 = 207) and tracking range is 166 KM.

But, another source said that's double, with an estimated 200 km in air to air mode (most likely tracking range).

Tracking range = 111×2 = 222 KM
Detection range = 138×2 = 276 KM

In conclusion, RBE2 >= Hanhwa it's true (based on this perspective).

 

[Windchime]

First of all, maximum detection of hanhwa radar to be around 200 km (most likely 30 square foot target).

Highly unlikely is 10 square foot target, which makes it equal to APG 77.

Maximum detection and tracking of RBE2 PESA radar is 75 NM (138 KM) and 60 NM (111 KM).

AESA radar makes the range extended by over 50%.

It makes the radar detection range is 207 KM (138+50% = 138+69 = 207) and tracking range is 166 KM.

But, another source said that's double, with an estimated 200 km in air to air mode (most likely tracking range).

Tracking range = 111×2 = 222 KM
Detection range = 138×2 = 276 KM

In conclusion, RBE2 >= Hanhwa it's true (based on this perspective).

Yeah, and how many of those sources are actually credible? Especially when these AESA radar operational parameters are actually classified? That first article you are posting is already getting some basic numbers wrong (eg. number of TRM on the Hanhwa AESA), meaning that the article are featuring both the information disclosed by the interviewee and the author and you can't even distinguish between them. All the while the wikipedia article is based on an Aviation Week article that is clear about the fact that the actual performance is undisclosed. Even if we take the third article about Rafale from Aviation Today by J.M. Guhl on a face value, which se don't even know of its source, there are no mentions of how those numbers came out under which conditions, with which kind of radar operating mode (unless you could deduce which radar operations mode it is just from the "air-to-air mode" description), which makes it virtually useless.

Again you are making questionable assumptions from thin air. For example, based on what are you even assuming that the 200km detection range figure for the Hanhwa AESA is for a target with rcs of 30 sqft? I really don't understand why you are trying to continue this discourse that is purely based on assumptions after assumptions without any concrete figures from any reliable sources, which is dumb as friggin rocks.

 

[Umigami]

got info from my friend in Kemensultan, well he is working as analyst for public policy and financing program (kemensultan is Slank for Indonesian MoF), Indonesian MoD and MoF has some insider agreement to proceed with Air Force need related deals first and for major contract for the Army and Navy would proceed later.

Heeee....

Eagle and Globaleye lah....

 

[norman88]

Yeah, and how many of those sources are actually credible? Especially when these AESA radar operational parameters are actually classified?

All sources based on developer interview, pilot interview, official website, magazines and trusted journalists. A highly reliable sources.

That first article you are posting is already getting some basic numbers wrong (eg. number of TRM on the Hanhwa AESA), meaning that the article are featuring both the information disclosed by the interviewee and the author and you can't even distinguish between them.

Please do not out of context,

All the while the wikipedia article is based on an Aviation Week article that is clear about the fact that the actual performance is undisclosed.

Unconfirmed meaning is from the Wikipedia writer perspective, which is not from the official source. Doesn't make sense big magazines such as aviation week publishing fake article.

Even if we take the third article about Rafale from Aviation Today by J.M. Guhl on a face value, which se don't even know of its source, there are no mentions of how those numbers came out under which conditions, with which kind of radar operating mode (unless you could deduce which radar operations mode it is just from the "air-to-air mode" description), which makes it virtually useless.

As I said before, doesn't make sense big media and jurnalist (especially military media) publishing fake data & article.

Again you are making questionable assumptions from thin air. For example, based on what are you even assuming that the 200km detection range figure for the Hanhwa AESA is for a target with rcs of 30 sqft? I really don't understand why you are trying to continue this discourse that is purely based on assumptions after assumptions without any concrete figures from any reliable sources, which is dumb as friggin rocks.

Based on logic.
So, you think 200 km is 1m²?
Ok, congratulations hanwha radar become the most capable radar in world along with APG 77.

 

[Windchime]

All sources based on developer interview, pilot interview, official website, magazines and trusted journalists. A highly reliable sources.


Please do not out of context,


Unconfirmed meaning is from the Wikipedia writer perspective, which is not from the official source. Doesn't make sense big magazines such as aviation week publishing fake article.


As I said before, doesn't make sense big media and jurnalist (especially military media) publishing fake data & article.


Based on logic.
So, you think 200 km is 1m²?
Ok, congratulations hanwha radar become the most capable radar in world along with APG 77.

Now you're even creating sources out of your head that are not even mentioned in the article and doesn't even understand what "thought to be" even means. Also dodging any counter arguments when it doesn't suit your narrative, quelle surprise. Well, I'll not stop you from believing whatever military fantasy you have in your head. thinks Aviation Week and Aviation Today are some math textbooks with clear facts. Gotta spit water out of surprise if he gets to know all the wild (and wrong) speculations AW and FG contributors made regarding military aviation until today.

Last but not least, all those above doesn't change the fact that you are making claims based on assumptions . Have fun

 

[NEKO]

Just stop.

 

[Lordimperator]

Heeee....

Eagle and Globaleye lah....

Wondering if they still pursue A330 MRTT

 

[Parry Brima]

Heeee....

Eagle and Globaleye lah....

Only 10.5 months left until the Presidential Election (Feb 14th 2024).

I'd love to be proven wrong, but there's no way the current President/gov have enough time & capability to finance all of those deal signed by MoD.

 

[Lordimperator]

Only 10.5 months left until the Presidential Election (Feb 14th 2024).

I'd love to be proven wrong, but there's no way the current President/gov have enough time & capability to finance all of those deal signed by MoD.

Let wait n see

 

[Umigami]

Only 10.5 months left until the Presidential Election (Feb 14th 2024).

I'd love to be proven wrong, but there's no way the current President/gov have enough time & capability to finance all of those deal signed by MoD.

I think time is still enough to pick which AEW&C.

 

[norman88]

Now you're even creating sources out of your head that are not even mentioned in the article and doesn't even understand what "thought to be" even means. Also dodging any counter arguments when it doesn't suit your narrative, quelle surprise. Well, I'll not stop you from believing whatever military fantasy you have in your head. Lil bro thinks Aviation Week and Aviation Today are some math textbooks with clear facts. Gotta spit water out of surprise if he gets to know all the wild (and wrong) speculations AW and FG contributors made regarding military aviation until today.

No adequate counter-argument, only accuse and slander big media of publishes fake content without providing any proof, just talking shit and denial.

Last but not least, all those above doesn't change the fact that you are making claims based on assumptions pulled out of you ass. Have fun

Have fun for you too for having the most capable radar in the world

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641262640206073856

MoD?

 

[Umigami]

No MBDA missile for Rafale yet
Please more AMRAAM and Sidewinder X please!

 

[JATOSINT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642009565117177856