F-22A Raptor's APG-77 radar

elp · by **elp** » 28 Apr 2006, 15:08

serino wrote:If you would like to learn about radio signals, noise, signal processing, interference, etc., go to www.SETI.org. Here is a "picture" of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft taken by SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) search project, Project Phoenix. I worked on this and am a personal friend if Frank Drake. My life has not totally been boring without being able to work on F-16's !

OK... thats what that is. I called the cable TV company about something similar and they had to send out a repair guy. :lol:

toan · by **toan** » 09 May 2006, 13:27

The estimation of tracking range capability of western fighters' radar:

APG-77 AESA（F-22A）：

CAESAR AESA（EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs）：

APG-63 V2/V3/V4 AESA（F-15C/E/SG）：

APG-81 AESA（F-35A/B/C）：

APG-79 AESA（F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, Block 2 and 3）：

CAPTOR（EF-2000 Tranch 1 and 2）：

RBE-2 AESA（Rafale F4, post-2012）：

APG-80 AESA（F-16E）：

NOAR AESA（JAS-39 C/D PLUS, post-2013）：

APG-63（F-15C）：

RBE-2 PESA（Rafale F1/F2/F3）：

APG-73（F/A-18E/F, Block1）：

PS-05A（JAS-39 A/B/C/D）：

APG-68 V9（F-16 C/D/I）and RDY-2（M2000-5MK2 and -9）：

RDY（M2000-5）：

APG-68 V5（F-16 C/D）：

APG-67 V4（T-50）：

avon1944 · by **avon1944** » 10 Aug 2006, 19:26

One more time thanx Toan, any word on what the performance the AN/APG-77 will be in the 2012 to 2015 time frame will be?

Adrian

Neotopia · by **Neotopia** » 27 Sep 2006, 01:30

toan wrote:The estimation of tracking range capability of western fighters' radar:

APG-77 AESA（F-22A）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 35 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 112 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 200 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 300 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 355 km+

CAESAR AESA（EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+

APG-63 V2/V3/V4 AESA（F-15C/E/SG）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 14~19 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 25~33 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 81~104 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 144~185 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 215~278 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 255~330 km+

APG-81 AESA（F-35A/B/C）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+

APG-79 AESA（F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, Block 2 and 3）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 13 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 22 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 72 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 128 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 192 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 228 km+

CAPTOR（EF-2000 Tranch 1 and 2）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 12 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 22 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 70 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 124 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 185 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 220 km+

RBE-2 AESA（Rafale F4, post-2012）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11~13 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20~23 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62~73 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165~195 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195~230 km+

APG-80 AESA（F-16E）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195 km+

NOAR AESA（JAS-39 C/D PLUS, post-2013）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 10~11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 18~20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 56~62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 100~110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 150~165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 178~195 km+

APG-63（F-15C）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 9 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 51 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 135 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 160 km+

RBE-2 PESA（Rafale F1/F2/F3）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 7~9 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 13~15 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 41~49 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 73~87 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 130~154 km+

APG-73（F/A-18E/F, Block1）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 10~11 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 32~36 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 56~64 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 84~96 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 100~114 km+

PS-05A（JAS-39 A/B/C/D）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 9~10 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 27~32 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 48~56 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 72~84 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 85~100 km+

APG-68 V9（F-16 C/D/I）and RDY-2（M2000-5MK2 and -9）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 4~5 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 8~9 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 25~30 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 46~54 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 66~80 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 78~95 km+

RDY（M2000-5）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 4~5 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 7~8 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 22~27 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 40~47 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 60~70 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 70~84 km+

APG-68 V5（F-16 C/D）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 3~4 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 6~7 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 18~22 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 32~40 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 50~60 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 60~72 km+

APG-67 V4（T-50）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 3~4 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 5~6 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 17~20 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 30~36 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 45~53 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 53~63 km+

I have an awful, awful, awful, hard time believing an AESA captor will be equal to an APG-77 in range/detection power/etc given the huge disparity in radome sizes and between the Raptor and the Eurofighter. The Radome on the Eurofighter is even smaller than the F-35. Remember, with radar, Size = Power, and Power = detection range. Better avionics can compensate somewhat for it but not to that degree, unless Europe has somehow found a way to skirt the laws of physics, and best American radar manufacturers that already have that technology in service... At best, the CAESAR will radar use tech that's already in active or planned US fighters, and will be slightly smaller than the APG-81.... so you probably looking at similar perfomance numbers for it. The Eurofighter has a radome roughly equal in size to the FA-18C. Simply put, those radar numbers are more than extremely generous to downright fecal for the Typhoon.

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 27 Sep 2006, 01:38

Well, toan never takes into consideration the future upgrades of the APG-77. He's pitting a system available and in service now against a theoretical one in the early stages of R&D.

Neotopia · by **Neotopia** » 27 Sep 2006, 02:21

skrip00 wrote:Well, toan never takes into consideration the future upgrades of the APG-77. He's pitting a system available and in service now against a theoretical one in the early stages of R&D.

Still, it's an unbelievable claim considering it will be Europe's first AESA, and the tech levels between the current APG-77 and CAESAR will likely be the same, especially considering Europe cannot yet, to my knowledge, even manufacture it's own T/R modules!! So how are they going to leapfrog the much more mature US radar industry and make fairy tale radars with twice the power density of superior and comperable American designs?

The CAPTOR is roughly the same size as the APG-73, and therefore CAESAR will be roughly the same size as the APG-79. It is likely that CAPTOR, in real life, has range capabilities similar to the APG-73, and CAESAR to the APG-79.

snypa777 · by **snypa777** » 27 Sep 2006, 02:55

Neotopia wrote:Europe cannot yet, to my knowledge, even manufacture it's own T/R
modules!! .

EADS builds it`s own T/R modules in Ulm, Germany. Check out some Euro` naval AESA radars while you are at it, they are fitted with locally built modules....

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 27 Sep 2006, 03:02

The problem at the moment is size and costs. To make T/R modules viable for aircraft means they need to be smaller. To do this raises costs immensly.

Its the cost factor which has held many nations back in AESA technology. Only the US was able to continue development without stoppage.

This is the system given to us by the $42bil F-22A development costs.

idesof · by **idesof** » 27 Sep 2006, 03:23

Neotopia wrote:
skrip00 wrote:Well, toan never takes into consideration the future upgrades of the APG-77. He's pitting a system available and in service now against a theoretical one in the early stages of R&D.

Still, it's an unbelievable claim considering it will be Europe's first AESA, and the tech levels between the current APG-77 and CAESAR will likely be the same, especially considering Europe cannot yet, to my knowledge, even manufacture it's own T/R modules!! So how are they going to leapfrog the much more mature US radar industry and make fairy tale radars with twice the power density of superior and comperable American designs?

The CAPTOR is roughly the same size as the APG-73, and therefore CAESAR will be roughly the same size as the APG-79. It is likely that CAPTOR, in real life, has range capabilities similar to the APG-73, and CAESAR to the APG-79.

Toan has always posted wildly exagerated figures for anything having to do with the EF. He thinks Taiwan should get it some day, and has a vested interest in portraying it in the most favorable light.

His figures should thus be taken with a mound of salt. He uses a lot of available sources to come up with figures that in the real world are classified. They are at best speculative, and I would lend them no credence whatsoever.

Moreover, regarding CAESAR, it may never come to be. According to a recent Aviation Week article, there are serious doubts Tranche 3 will ever happen, let alone some of the more wildly speculative future capabilities for the EF, including thrust vectoring and all that fairy tale crap used to justify this mediocre performer.

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 27 Sep 2006, 03:28

Now be nice. Toan never claims the numbers are accurate. He's just compiling the numbers the best way he has it.

My issue is the claims made based on systems yet to even begin full-scale testing. CAESAR is still in its R&D gestation period, so those numbers can be waaay off irrespective of what members of the Typhoon community said.

JCSVT · by **JCSVT** » 27 Sep 2006, 04:12

idesof wrote:Toan has always posted wildly exagerated figures for anything having to do with the EF.

Oh yes and you report every thing as fact. Just like Dozer being reprimanded by higher-ups(Dozer's own decision) and your Raptor supercruising at Mach 2 tangent(only mentioned by NYT, never verified by anyone). We all can be accused of trying to find figures that are most likely classified. Most of the time I find Toan's figures to be pretty accurate. I for one, am glad that someone is trying to handle stats around here.

I've seen his figures on the Typhoon and they seen right in-line with what EADS has been saying and they are a little ahead of the Rafale which is right on target.

Yes, those claims about CAESAR are pretty inaccurate.

used to justify this mediocre performer.

Oh boy, here we go again. Please tell me, what makes the Typhoon mediocre? There are other fighters besides the F-22 and F-35 that will serve well in future conflicts.

idesof · by **idesof** » 27 Sep 2006, 04:39

JCSVT wrote:Oh yes and you report every thing as fact. Just like Dozer being reprimanded by higher-ups(Dozer's own decision) and your Raptor supercruising at Mach 2 thread(only mentioned by NYT, never verified by anyone). We all can be accused of trying to find figures that are most likely classified. Most of the time I find Toan's figures to be pretty accurate. I for one, am glad that someone is trying to handle stats around here.

I was trying not to respond to this as Dozer himself contacted me clearing up the issue and was just going to let it rest. If you had read Dozer's post to which I reacted, it was aparent from the way he wrote it that he had, indeed, been reprimanded (that post has now been removed). I was not the only one who took it to mean that.

Now, if you look at the supercruise thread, you will see that the NYT article is not the only source that cites such information. You are either willfully mischaracterizing the case, or you are willfully blind. So, you can stop lecturing me now, okay?

Now, who is handling stats? What stats? Radar range? Give me a f*cking break. If there is one figure that is classified as all hell even for aircraft that have been in service for decades it is radar range.

I've seen his figures on the Typhoon and they seen right in-line with what EADS has been saying and they are a little ahead of the Rafale which is right on target.

Okay, so, you have one marketing team's word against another. Good for you. I have a bridge to sell you if you're interested.

Oh boy, here we go again. Please tell me, what makes the Typhoon mediocre? There are other fighters besides the F-22 and F-35 that will serve well in future conflicts.

As you said, here we go again. Which means you have read elsewhere why I characterize the EF as a mediocre performer. Which is why I will not reiterate statements made elsewhere when obviously you have read them.

idesof · by **idesof** » 27 Sep 2006, 05:09

JCSVT wrote:Oh yes and you report every thing as fact. Just like Dozer being reprimanded by higher-ups(Dozer's own decision) and your Raptor supercruising at Mach 2 tangent(only mentioned by NYT, never verified by anyone).

By the way, this was one of the last things Dozer wrote before he censored himself...

Quote snipped.

Regardless of whether it can cruise at Mach 2 (I continue to hold that it should be able to), this is a hell of an impressive statement.

Never mind. I self-edited after I posted that. If Dozer wanted to take it down where he first posted it, it is only fair that I not quote what he obviously did not want to see quoted anymore elsewhere.

toan · by **toan** » 27 Sep 2006, 05:45

Neotopia wrote:I have an awful, awful, awful, hard time believing an AESA captor will be equal to an APG-77 in range/detection power/etc given the huge disparity in radome sizes and between the Raptor and the Eurofighter. The Radome on the Eurofighter is even smaller than the F-35. Remember, with radar, Size = Power, and Power = detection range. Better avionics can compensate somewhat for it but not to that degree, unless Europe has somehow found a way to skirt the laws of physics, and best American radar manufacturers that already have that technology in service... At best, the CAESAR will radar use tech that's already in active or planned US fighters, and will be slightly smaller than the APG-81.... so you probably looking at similar perfomance numbers for it. The Eurofighter has a radome roughly equal in size to the FA-18C. Simply put, those radar numbers are more than extremely generous to downright fecal for the Typhoon.

1. The size of antenna for Captor-M radar today is 70 cm in diameter, and BAES and EADS declared that CAPTOR-E will have a bigger antenna in the future.

What is the size of APG-81's antenna? Does anyone here has the data for this?

2. UK & Germany test pilots declared that the Captor-M radar today can track MIG-29 (RCS = 5m2) at the range of "Significantly longer than 100 miles / 161 km", or about 185 km away. And BAES said that after the upgrading of AESA, the effective range of CAPTOR shall be able to increase 50% at least ~ That is the basis for me to make the estimation for the effective range of CAPTOR-E range in the future, and of course, it might be proved to be just a grain of salt in the future.

3. How many T/Rs will CAPTOR-E have in the future? According to the information from these recent documents:

I think there are two kinds of possibilities:

A. 1,050~1,100 T/R modules for CAESAR now --> 1,400+ (or 1,424) T/R modules for CAPTOR-E after 2012.
B. 1,400+ (or 1,424) T/R modules for CAESAR now --> 1,850~1,900 T/R modules for CAPTOR-E after 2012.

Personally, I think "A" has the higher possibility.

4. As for "Always posted wildly exagerated figures of EF...", please just search my previous posts of my personal opinions for the scenario of "F-22A or F-35 versus EF-2000 with or without AESA radar in BVR combat" in this website. I think I never said that EF-2000 can get any advantage in this kind of scenario, even it equip an AESA radar that is as good as I estimated above.

habu2 · by **habu2** » 27 Sep 2006, 15:01

idesof, congratulations on dragging another thread into the gutter.... :applause: