What's new

SAAB's Gripen NG Fighter Has An Awesome Way To Make Its Radar More Capable

PaklovesTurkiye

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
7,448
Reaction score
10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Tyler Rogoway
11/21/15

1529377362723343144.gif


AESA radars have changed aerial combat, offering a quantum leap in range, resolution, fast scanning capabilities, stealthiness and reliability among many other advantages. But, an AESA’s somewhat narrow field of view can still be an issue. SAAB has come up with a ingenious solution to this problem—spin an angled AESA radar array around on a platter.
This system, which is called a repositioner, is ingenious as it allows the Gripen NG’s Raven ES-05 radar to gain another 40 degrees of scanning ability to either side of the aircraft’s nose. This is in addition to the 60 degrees AESA radar sets typically provide (120 degrees combined).


The ability to take a beyond-visual-range missile shot, then turn 90 degrees, while still providing mid-course updates for the missile fired and keep situational awareness at its peak is a great thing, and it opens up many tactical advantages for Gripen NG crews.

1529377362861925928.jpg


This system will allow beaming into the enemy’s radar notch without losing track of the bad guys. Beaming is when a fighter turns around 90 degrees away (perpendicular) from the enemy’s pulse doppler radar array. Because these types of radars use doppler shift to gauge a target’s relative velocity, and as such they filter out low relative velocity objects, especially ground clutter, the beaming fighter, which is not moving to or away from the enemy radar much while beaming, can enter the enemy radar’s notch.

1529377362890708264.jpg


This is a blind spot where the radar’s velocity gate, which acts like a filter, sees a target at low enough speed from its perspective that it discounts it. So even though the fighter may be moving at 500 mph, the right angle to the radar makes it only detect maybe 60 mph of closure, as such it throws this information out as it would ground clutter. This is an especially useful tactic when the enemy fighter is above you, and trying to lock you up in the look-down-shoot down scenario.

The issue is that with a typical fixed AESA radar array, pulling off such a maneuver means the fighter doing so will lose its radar picture and lock on the enemy it is trying to evade. Without third party sensors feeding this data to the beaming fighter via data-link, its pilot will become blind to the tactical situation when it matters most.

1529377362905271592.jpg

Now, with a system like SAAB’s repositioner, the radar can be rotated to gain the extra azimuth to continue scanning the area over 90 degrees off its nose. As such, the pilot will not lose situational awareness and their missiles can continue to get mid-course updates as they fly towards their targets. Paired with low-probability of intercept mode, where the AESA radar uses very directed beams of radar energy in quick succession, and while hopping frequencies, the fighter that is beaming can be hard to detect even by passive sensors, such as radar warning receivers.

The ES-05 Raven AESA Radar for Gripen in action..........https://vine.co/v/MQbiUQWxvEp

With new missiles that have extreme ranges, like MBDA’s Meteor, a Gripen NG could fire these missiles at enemy fighters at long-ranges, and then jump into the enemy’s doppler notch to hide while still guiding its missiles. This could put the Gripen NG beyond the reach of the enemy’s infrared search and track system (IRST) that is impervious to jamming or beaming tricks during the entirety of the engagement, as well as the enemy’s radar for much of it. As such, the enemy fighters would not be able to detect the Gripen even while its missiles are well on the way. First shots, first kill.

Other solutions to this problem have been designed into other fighters. The F-22 Raptor was supposed to have AESA radar arrays on both sides of its nose in order to give the jet more radar coverage at extreme angles. Sadly, the equipment was never installed due to budget reasons. Still, the F-22, with its low observability (stealth) really has less a need for such a system than less stealthy aircraft.

Unlike the F-22, Russia’s T-50 has side-mounted AESA arrays, which may be necessary due to the aircraft’s less stealthy design when compared to the F-22. The Eurofighter consortium also has an answer to this problem with their swashplate design tied to the CAPTOR-E radar, which is very similar to SAAB’s repositioner.


With the 4.75 generation fighter marketplace looking to be stable much longer than originally anticipated, AESA radar upgrades breathe new life into not so new designs. The Gripen NG in particular packs a ton of capability into a small package, and it will be interesting to see how the jet does once it becomes operational.

Currently, Brazil has an order for 36 of the jets (24 single-seat Gripen Es and 12 two-seat Gripen Fs) that should begin being delivered by 2019, and Sweden will order 60.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saabs-gripen-ng-fighter-has-an-awesome-way-to-make-its-1743963539
 
interesting I was just reading about how the Su-30 can beat the F-15 almost every time by taking advantage of the radar notch

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html


"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.
 
interesting I was just reading about how the Su-30 can beat the F-15 almost every time by taking advantage of the radar notch

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html


"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

I wish this system "repositioner" also gets installed on JF-17.
 
I wish this system "repositioner" also gets installed on JF-17.
The JF-17 doesn't require it presently with its mechanically scanned Pulse-Doppler FCR. The "repositioner" is useful for solid state AESA radars to expand their scan radius.


@Topic, the Gripen is a nice package and conventional wisodom would say it would be very attractive for the less well off customers but with recent reports of its actual price being >$150mn/plane I struggle to see who is going to opt for this plane beyond Brazil now. Its life cycle costs may be lower than the Rafale's or Typhoon's but its upfront cost is comprable and its performance is vastly inferior.
 
The JF-17 doesn't require it presently with its mechanically scanned Pulse-Doppler FCR. The "repositioner" is useful for solid state AESA radars to expand their scan radius.


@Topic, the Gripen is a nice package and conventional wisodom would say it would be very attractive for the less well off customers but with recent reports of its actual price being >$150mn/plane I struggle to see who is going to opt for this plane beyond Brazil now. Its life cycle costs may be lower than the Rafale's or Typhoon's but its upfront cost is comprable and its performance is vastly inferior.

Gripen and LCA are both powered by same engine GE 404
But look at the difference

We really have to bridge this knowledge gap and make LCA mk2

Let it take whatever time it takes
 
Gripen and LCA are both powered by same engine GE 404
But look at the difference

We really have to bridge this knowledge gap and make LCA mk2

Let it take whatever time it takes
The NG actually has the F414 (like the MK.2). The Mk.1A will be comparable to the Gripen C/D if not superior in some areas (will have an AESA radar) and the MK.2 should be comparable to the NG.
 
The NG actually has the F414 (like the MK.2). The Mk.1A will be comparable to the Gripen C/D if not superior in some areas (will have an AESA radar) and the MK.2 should be comparable to the NG.

So Mk 2 AESA radar has a repositioner?

The JF-17 doesn't require it presently with its mechanically scanned Pulse-Doppler FCR. The "repositioner" is useful for solid state AESA radars to expand their scan radius.


@Topic, the Gripen is a nice package and conventional wisodom would say it would be very attractive for the less well off customers but with recent reports of its actual price being >$150mn/plane I struggle to see who is going to opt for this plane beyond Brazil now. Its life cycle costs may be lower than the Rafale's or Typhoon's but its upfront cost is comprable and its performance is vastly inferior.

The prize to be payed for Gripen E/F is a lot lower than what they would have had to pay for Rafale.
Hard to compare different deals...
 
So Mk 2 AESA radar has a repositioner?
Potentially.

The prize to be payed for Gripen E/F is a lot lower than what they would have had to pay for Rafale.
Hard to compare different deals...
Like you say it is hard to compare different deals but the upfront cost of the Gripen E/F is nowhere near as "cheap" as I had expected (sub $100m). I'm sure the lifecycle costs are considerably lower though (being a smaller, lighter single engined fighter) than the EFT/Rafale.
 
Potentially.


Like you say it is hard to compare different deals but the upfront cost of the Gripen E/F is nowhere near as "cheap" as I had expected (sub $100m). I'm sure the lifecycle costs are considerably lower though (being a smaller, lighter single engined fighter) than the EFT/Rafale.
The Rafale is maybe $250M each under these circumstances which tells You that the contract is more than the plane.
Norway was quoted $60-70M per Gripen E.
 
Back
Top Bottom