F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Is there anything that specifically states the F-35 can't use the AIM-120D? It seems a bit ridiculous that the F-22 and Super Hornet could use it to it's full potential but the F-35 can't.

The F-22 is currently testing the 3.2B software to allow it to use the AIM-120D, a missile variant that was specifically designed and specified for the Super Hornet to fully replace Tomcat/Phoenix functionality so it is no surprise it is the earliest aircraft cleared to do so

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... -the-24286

Is that really so? The part about the 120D being specifically designed to replace the F-14/AWG-9 Phoenix functionaility?? If so, that makes a lot of sense. I'm assuming the SH radar will give it that 100 mile (or thereabouts range). And if that's true, will any fighter with a large enough radar plus AIM-120D have that range (i.e. F-15C/E)? How about our F-16's? With a much smaller radar, will it too carry the 120D even though it can't take advantage of its long legs?

Sorry for all the questions, but this is an important topic IMO. Especially when your air force is counting so heavily on winning fights BVR...

The F-16V/Block 70 with its AESA can spot a non stealthy small fighter target (3 to 5 sq m) like Su-35 over 100nm so it could theoretically launch an AIM-120D at the end of its envelope when it gets a target track assuming it already knows it's an enemy. So the originally cheap dogfighter armed up with sidewinders can end its life as a long range BVR stalker thanks to the advances in radar and missile technology plus its relatively low clean RCS. Any teen fighter with an AESA can use the full range of the AIM-120D. Even a standard non-AESA F-16 could fire an AIM-120D around its NEZ of 30-40nm taking full advantage of the improved pK of the missile at medium range.

The USN got extra range specified on the AMRAAM initially with C-7 and finally with C-8 aka D. This link is from 2006 and gives you the history around that time.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

The AIM-120C-7 (P3I Phase 3), development of which has begun in 1998, incorporates improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded seeker, and longer range. The latter feature was specifically requested by the U.S. Navy to get a (somewhat) suitable replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile, which was then planned to be retired together with the F-14D Tomcat around 2007 (actual official retirement was already in September 2004). The AIM-120C-7 was successfully tested against combat-realistic targets in August and September 2003, and IOC was then planned for 2004. This has slipped somewhat, but as of early 2006, the AIM-120C-7 is beginning to be fielded. Equivalent to the -120A/B, there are also CATM-120C and JAIM-120C non-tactical variants of the AIM-120C.

The AIM-120D (P3I Phase 4, formerly known as AIM-120C-8) is a development of the AIM-120C with a two-way data link, more accurate navigation using a GPS-enhanced IMU, an expanded no-escape envelope, improved HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability, and a 50% increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint USAF/USN project, and is currently in the testing phase. First production deliveries are expected for December 2007. The CATM-120D is the inert captive-carry trai

I guess that one also has to remember that an air-to-air missile (such as the AMRAAM) maximum range is usually a bit of a "theoretical value". Usually such maximum ranges takes into the account that the enemy/targeted aircraft is flying towards the launching aircraft and will never take any evasive action/maneuver (or even use countermeasures).
What I mean with this is that if you shoot a missile (such as the AIM-120D but this extends to all other A2A missiles) at an incoming enemy aircraft at the missile's maximum range and then at mid-course the targeted/enemy aircraft break/turns at for example 90 degrees left or right than the missile has a good chance of not reaching the targeted aircraft at all.
What I also mean with this is that a missile's maximum range does not equates to the missile's NEZ (No Escape Zone) range - Obviously the longer the range a missile has the longer is its NEZ but nevertheless NEZ is not maximum range.

The F-16V/Block 70 with its AESA can spot a non stealthy small fighter target (3 to 5 sq m) like Su-35 over 100nm

Do you have a source for that claim?

The only technical Data i found is the SAR Resolution of 0.3m. Which its not great for a AESA. The EF captor-E has the same resolution. And the APG-81 seems to have around 5 cm (2in).

In an indirect way with non official sources.

https://hushkit.net/2016/04/24/top-ten-fighter-radars/

The F-16E/Fs radar was said to be the first example of export customers receiving superior kit to USAF. It has a higher reliability and twice the range of older, mechanically-scanned AN/APG-68 radar systems. It has around 1000 T/R Modules and is considered by pilots both reliable and mature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-68

Range for 5m2 aerial target is 105km

So for the liquid cooled APG-80 that's 210 km which is about 114nm. There might be some degradation with the air cooled APG-83 which would bring it closer to 100nm. Even if you only budget for a 50% increase that's still 100 miles. Of course these are all rough estimates even educated guesses but the RBE2 has less modules and claims a 200 km range against fighter targets too.

In an indirect way with non official sources.

https://hushkit.net/2016/04/24/top-ten-fighter-radars/

The F-16E/Fs radar was said to be the first example of export customers receiving superior kit to USAF. It has a higher reliability and twice the range of older, mechanically-scanned AN/APG-68 radar systems. It has around 1000 T/R Modules and is considered by pilots both reliable and mature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-68

Range for 5m2 aerial target is 105km

So for the liquid cooled APG-80 that's 210 km which is about 114nm. There might be some degradation with the air cooled APG-83 which would bring it closer to 100nm. Even if you only budget for a 50% increase that's still 100 miles. Of course these are all rough estimates even educated guesses but the RBE2 has less modules and claims a 200 km range against fighter targets too.

Agreed. That would make sense. I also think the APG-83 has a less performance ( cooling, SAR Resolution, track only 20 targets).

The RBE2 PESA has a Range of 140 km vs a 3m2 Traget. The AESA has an increase of 50-100 %. That would mean over 210 km range.

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/06/0 ... us-squall/

The present radar air-to-air modes include long-range search; multi target track and engagement; air combat modes; Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR); and look down/shoot down functions. In air-to-air mode, the RBE2 gives a tracking range beyond 60 nautical miles against a 30-square-foot target, with detection ranges up to 75 nautical miles. The radar can track and prioritize up to 40 targets simultaneously and engage up to eight with Mica, and soon Meteor, air-to-air missiles.

The RBE2 air-to-ground modes include: Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) mapping; SAR mapping; Fixed Target Track (FTT); Sea Surface Search and Track While Scan; Ground Moving Target Identification and Track (GMTI/T); target acquisition and air-to-ground ranging. Terrain following and avoidance modes can be combined to generate 3-D radar maps, thus enabling full automatic terrain following flights using the radar only.

It appears that technology has marched on, and new radars and missiles are in fact greatly extending the range at which an aircraft can "reach out and touch someone". That's all predicated on a good IFF though, no?

I guess my question is, have those systems kept pace with the radars and missiles?? And further, is a definitive IFF available from the launch aircraft, as opposed to AWACS or some other resource?? Sure, there are lots of launch aircraft possibilities, but the main players I'm interested in are the F-15, 16 and 18.

I'm assuming the F-22 and 35 can IFF themselves, with no outside platforms...

It appears that technology has marched on, and new radars and missiles are in fact greatly extending the range at which an aircraft can "reach out and touch someone". That's all predicated on a good IFF though, no?

I guess my question is, have those systems kept pace with the radars and missiles?? And further, is a definitive IFF available from the launch aircraft, as opposed to AWACS or some other resource?? Sure, there are lots of launch aircraft possibilities, but the main players I'm interested in are the F-15, 16 and 18.

I would say: definitely yes.
For example, by looking at your post it seems to me that you're forgetting an extremely important element which is internal to the platform/fighter aircraft, this for BVR ID which alongside with IFF is the NCTR (Non Cooperative Target Recognition) radar mode.

For example during Desert Storm in 1991, coalition aircraft were allowed to engage enemy aircraft at BVR range (without Visual ID) only if two (2) of the following three (3) conditions were met:
1- AWACS confirmation/permission.
2- IFF confirmation
3- NCTR confirmation.

As you can see, 2- and 3- are internal sources regarding the fighter aircraft while 1- is external (AWACS). Nevertheless in 1991 the only coalition aircraft that was equipped with NCTR mode was precisely the F-15C which means that during that time/conflict the only aircraft that could engage enemy aircraft at BVR range "autonomously" (without AWACS permission) was exactly the F-15C since it could get its ID confirmation by two of the three ID required/sources which where NCTR AND IFF.
But nowadays all the other aircraft that you mentioned, namely the F-16 and the F/A-18 have NCTR modes, so yes this is an excellent example of how ID technology keeps up with longer detection and engagement range technology.

The F-22 and the F-35 advances this even further because instead of the pilot analyzing his IFF and NCTR data independently and merging it in his brain, the advanced sensor fusion manages this automatically for the pilot while at the same time merging even more sources of information regarding the same target/track (like for example external sources such as AWACS and/or other allied platforms).

There are also LDPs like SNIPER/LITENING/ATFLIR which allow for image recognition at range. I wouldn't worry about it though, there are enough F-35s now so that they can be stealthy forward quarterbacks who can pass on target tracks to radio silent teen fighters which can then maneuvere into position to take silent long range shots. F-22/F-35 will be at the front spearhead saving their weapons for essential targets and steering the teen fighters who now become kinematic missile carriers. The amount of F-22/F-35 has reached critical mass where these mixed 4/5th gen forces will be very effective as a combined fighting force.

I would be very surprised if the performance of the APG-83 was inferior to the APG-80. Considerable advancements have occurred since the APG-80 was designed.

For the Umpteenth time here is the quote - search on OSLEY to find all the instances of this quote in this forum:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52958&p=403079&hilit=Osley#p403079

First instance 25 May 2013: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=24031&p=252760&hilit=Osley+parameters#p252760

Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
FRIDAY, 16 MARCH 2012 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT page 61-62

“...Air Vice Marshal Osley: The F-35 will play to its strengths using low observ-ability and using better situational awareness. Its aim would be not to get within visual range. It does not need to be within visual range because of the sensors it has on board. I mentioned before that it has perhaps three times the software and therefore the discrimination of other modern aircraft. Its strength is its ability to recognise and identify an enemy aircraft at beyond visual range well ahead of the other aircraft —...

...And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example — is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F-22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F-18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F-35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a consider-able distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range....”

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... ficial.pdf

I would be very surprised if the performance of the APG-83 was inferior to the APG-80. Considerable advancements have occurred since the APG-80 was designed.

Yes, I also have the same opinion.
And even more, let nor forget that the APG-83 (SABR) is based on the F-35's APG-81 radar. This alone could be enough "evidence" that the APG-83/SABR is based on a more advanced technology compared to the APG-80.

Custom cooling counts

https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishing. ... ight-test/

The upgraded F-16V introduces an AN/APG-83 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, new mission computer and F-16C/D landing gear. The AN/APG-83 can simultaneously perform search, tracking and lock-on functions. For multiple targets, the detection range is increased by more than 30% compared with the original APG-66(V)3 radar.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 0325595668

The APG-66(V)2 is an enhanced version of the radar developed as part of the F-16 Mid-Life Upgrade Program and will become the standard APG-66(V). Key improvements are a 25 percent gain in detection and tracking range, a 40 percent improvement in reliability, and an overall 10 to 15 percent improvement in performance. Processing speed has been increased
seven times with the addition of 20 times the non-volatile memory. A Doppler correlator reduces the false-alarm rate by classifying returns as either ground movers, weather, mutual interference, or sidelobe returns. The weight of the system is reduced by about 54 pounds (24.5 kg) and the radar is consolidated into three LRUs.

During the field trials on a BAC-1-11 test aircraft, the
APG-66(V)2’s performance surpassed expectations; it
was possible to demonstrate the radar in the high
electromagnetic interference environment of the
Netherlands and in the high clutter environment of the
fjords of Norway. According to company officials, the
demonstration radar doubled range detection, reduced
false alarms by a factor of 10, and simulated six
AMRAAM shots. Ground mapping was improved and
demonstrated out to 80 nautical miles, and the buyers
had the opportunity to see the full-color display.
In demonstrations to other potential buyers, engineers
emphasized design maturity and growth potential. The
upgraded radar’s performance was nearly that of the
APG-68(V) installed in the F-16C/D, and it permitted
use of the AMRAAM with a smaller, lighter radar
system – both excellent selling points.

In 1994, Taiwan decided to procure the MLU radar with
its purchase of up to 150 F-16A/Bs. The RoC originally
wanted the APG-68(V), but accepted the APG-66(V) once the MLU performance was demonstrated. The contract was computed to be worth up to US$195.8 million, and production extended from 1996 through 1999.

APG-66(V)3. MLU radars are being supplied to Taiwan for up to 150 F-16A/B aircraft. They are suitable for the less-capable AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile.

Thanks marsavian. I think this says a lot. There have to be design compromises for the APG-83. If you can even install it in a F-16 A.

If you can even install it in a F-16 A.

There is no "if" as this is exactly what the F-16V upgrades for Taiwan entail.

If you can even install it in a F-16 A.

There is no "if" as this is exactly what the F-16V upgrades for Taiwan entail.

Yes i read the article above. I made a misleading statement.