F-16V vs Gripen NG

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post11 Aug 2019, 06:30

There was discussion on this forum about the APG-83 radar vs the APG-80 before. I think one thing that was discussed was that the APG-83 was an upgrade to older F-16 radar. It have to fit the power level of older F-16. Since the F-16 block 60 was built with the APG-80 in mind, the power infrastructure was design for it. It maybe that power level to take the full advantage APG-80 was not their in the older F-16 and the performance match that. It will be just to costly to update the power infrastructure of older f-16 to take full advantage of APG-83.
Last edited by skyward on 11 Aug 2019, 16:17, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1763
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post11 Aug 2019, 12:20

skyward wrote:I think one thing that was discussed was that the APG-80 was an upgrade to older F-16 radar. It have to fix the power level of older F-16.


Let's not get confused between old and "derived from" because almost every AESA radar in service has been "derived from" older radars - basically because not much point in reinventing the wheel each time. AFAIK the only F-16 radar that was built entirely from the ground up was the original APG-66 (WX-200) because there was no other suitable digital solid state radar around.

Also correct me if I am wrong but the ES-05 Raven was originally the PS-05 AESA which put an active array onto the existing PS-05A back end.

According to NG the 83 can use the same power and cooling as the 68 but you would have to ignore the trend to reduce power requirements in solid state components over the past 15 years (an eternity) to really conclude this is a significant limitation. Greece and Morocco are happily replacing APG-68v9s (a radar claimed to have 33% better range than the 68v5) so it probably ain't that bad!
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 413
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 14:47

I think nobody said the APG-83 is a bad Radar. Im sure its a big improvement over the APG-68. But all available data seems to say , its inferior to the APG-80. For several reasons mentioned in this forum.
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 19:13

If Deagel is correct, then I'd say based on this
It is designed to fit F-16 aircraft with no structural, power or cooling modifications

APG-83 might as well be a "lesser" product.
However, one must take into account cost! If the -83 has 10% less performance but reduces cost by much more than that it doesn't really matter. And I'd say if you don't have to take half the a/c apart to perform a radar upgrade then you've already won that performance/$$$ battle.
Russia stronk
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 413
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 20:06

juretrn wrote:If Deagel is correct, then I'd say based on this
It is designed to fit F-16 aircraft with no structural, power or cooling modifications

APG-83 might as well be a "lesser" product.
However, one must take into account cost! If the -83 has 10% less performance but reduces cost by much more than that it doesn't really matter. And I'd say if you don't have to take half the a/c apart to perform a radar upgrade then you've already won that performance/$$$ battle.


I fully agree with you.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2091
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 22:43

swiss wrote:I think nobody said the APG-83 is a bad Radar. Im sure its a big improvement over the APG-68. But all available data seems to say , its inferior to the APG-80. For several reasons mentioned in this forum.


Also note that I'm not saying that the APG-83 is better than the APG-80. Yes, I definitely could believe that the APG-80 should be "better" than the APG-83 (in terms of detection range, that is). I also fully agree that installing an APG-83 will/would be quite cheaper than doing the same with the APG-80 hence why the former was selected for the F-16V and not the later.
What I'm "saying" is that I have my very strong doubts that the APG-83 is "as bad" as some data seem to point out (such as only having 33% or so better detection radar then older APG-68 radars).
I'm saying this because of that basher said in his last post which I'll quote below:
basher54321 wrote:Greece and Morocco are happily replacing APG-68v9s (a radar claimed to have 33% better range than the 68v5) so it probably ain't that bad!
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 413
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 20:47

ricnunes wrote:What I'm "saying" is that I have my very strong doubts that the APG-83 is "as bad" as some data seem to point out (such as only having 33% or so better detection radar then older APG-68 radars).
I'm saying this because of that basher said in his last post which I'll quote below:
basher54321 wrote:Greece and Morocco are happily replacing APG-68v9s (a radar claimed to have 33% better range than the 68v5) so it probably ain't that bad!


Ok. The range statement was from Airforce monthely (over 30% more then the APG-66) one year ago. This seems a reliable source to me.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2263
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post14 Aug 2019, 17:02

Even if it had 0% range boost, the finer granularity of the picture it offers of the same airspace makes it worthwhile. It's more than just a boost in technology. The mission availability rate will be higher and the MTBF will be substantially different.
Previous

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest