Karan M wrote:Brar, at this point you are just doing the same stuff all over again.
And why should I not continue to state that the lack of specific technical sourcing in the APA analysis? And when they do provide sources (such as Aviation Week) they cherry pick data to suite their conclusions. Again, if they managed to source actual performance technical data, I am all ears. Show that here. They certainly never put out an analysis claiming to utilize it.
Karan M wrote:Again, if you think you know better than Kopp, please put up a parametric analysis of AWG-9/71 vs APG-63 to back up your claimed superiority of the latter vs the former, to back up or rebut what some USN guy or USAF guy said and then we can go from there.
My problem with Kopp never pertained to his analysis of the F-14 vs F-15. It was with his capability claims on the AESA radars and the lack of technical sourcing of the data he attributed to them. The F-15/F-14 point was in rebuttal to an interview of ONE F-14 pilot who claimed something to which I merely stated that I have heard different things from other pilots.
Karan M wrote:Forget what AvWeek said or he said, she said. Lets just go with the methodology. Use his methodology, create a parametric analysis of the AESA or MSAs and lets see what's wrong with Kopps approach.
Why do I need to do that? I am not saying going to now start a think tank and spend resources in rebutting the garbage that the APA has put out over the years. He claims certain performance baesline and he uses that baseline to attribute capability to US AESA radars. Some of what he cites as evidence is attributed to media publications and print stories some of which are selectively cherry picked and the lower end of what those very sources have claimed over time. That is his bias. The APA stuff is a think tank analysis which feeds a particular conclusion that the organization has always held. It is not an academic assessment of performance that would stand a peer review.
It was news to me to learn that he used ACTUAL TECHNICAL data on the said radars to form his analysis. If that were true then that would have been a major revelation. And most certainly something that I would love to see. But in reality, none of what he produced at the APA ever used classified technical materials. It often cited publicly available data which was scant, unreliable and not something that could be used in a serious technical analysis much like product brochures.
In short, the APA does not use (nor claims to use) any classified or even specific vendor or operator provided technical details, instead relying on inaccurate or dated media reports as a basis of performance attribution and shows a bias towards understating the performance of US airborne AESA radars and combat aircraft performance in general. That constitutes a think tank paper and does not constitute a verifiable review or a credible assessment of these sensors. Next we'll claim that the F-35 can only carry 2 missiles in its Air Superiority configuration because the much published Kopp and his APA claimed this to be the case. And because they say, it must be true.
Forget what AvWeek said or he said, she said. Lets just go with the methodology.
He uses old sources to attribute a certain radar performance to US radars. The data that he used is cherry picked to suite his conclusions and even if it weren't does not constitute technical details that would constitute a reasonable and peer reviewable data. Now if we ignore what he attributes to the performance of US AESA radars the entire argument or comparison fades away. If he under-estimates US AESA performance based on his bias or cherry picked data, or because he refused to update that data when newer data was available (often from the same sources), how are we to believe that he is attributing reasonable capability to the said radars?
Karan M wrote:What's even more amusing is what he thought was a "bad light" is also reluctantly admitted by him to be still solid performance.
Accurately sizing up the capability of sensors is pretty important. If you systematically underestimate the capability of sensors because that feeds into your conclusion than it really has no value in the broader scheme of things. Starting with the F-22, and F-35 and even down to the other US radars, he has on nearly all occasions understated the performance of these AESA radars. This systemic mis-characterization of these data points to a systemic bias whick he and Goon clearly had/have.
Nor did it have anything to do with Bill Sweetman leaving Av Week.
Bill Sweetman leaving AvWeek because of Lockheed? What a joke. I'm sure the opportunity of a lifetime to document (by being on the inside) probably the most important aerospace program (which would be right up his ally given he has attempted to do this for other programs), in the US, this side of the last 2.5 decades, had nothing to do with it (for both him and one of his colleagues).
do you seriously think researchers in any field wait for "requirements" to determine competitor capabilities and lack the domain expertise to put 2+2 together in their respective fields and make informed estimates which they constantly iterate vs released data?
What does this even mean? How do you attribute capabilities to a future platform before those requirements have even been framed? It is hard to do that with all the information, let alone do it with just a bunch of media sources and sanitized information to go by. He failed to do it on the F-35 for example because he completely mis-represented (or deliberately) the fact that the program upped the sensor requirements very early on. That would have been an easier lift actually..he wasn't trying to predict the future before the requirements were set in stone. All he needed to do was correctly interpret stated data. That he failed to even do that properly should be sufficient to draw caution to his ability to predict performance when not even that is available. He kept on baselining it to the Super Hornet level performance. When data came out to the contrary, he and his group never updated their assessment. Similarly, he never modeled the F-22's capabiliy increase with the transition from the 3rd Gen. APG-77 to the fourth gen. APG-77-V-1 which changed a number of important things on that sensor. Similarly, in one of his presentations that I witnessed he presented open source data on how the F-15 performance would be upgraded if they switched from a MSA to an active antenna. But that is not the extent of the F-15 RMP. The final state involved a completely new radar, major changes to the aircraft and its other systems to extract a much higher level of performance. He never modeled that or attributed this higher capability...
Karan M wrote:40000 words to basically admit that the F/A-18 E/F does OCA/DCA unlike what you originally claimed with such certitude.
Come on man. Should it be this hard to understand this nuance? The F-18E/F is not an OCA/DCA optimized platform. The COCOM's do not prefer it for it. The US Navy did not emphasize this capability when establishing requirements for the program or executing the project. The platform does not excel at it. Please compare and contrast what the ATF/N-ATF performance requirements were to what was eventually required of the F-18 E/F. The former represented the peak requirements for an optimal OCA/DCA platfrom the US could develop given their capability. The latter waters down most of that in the interest of affordability and recognizing the fact that there were missions the USN did not need to provide to the COCOMs. OCA is one of them. The DCA threat was and still is not as severe for the USN to pay to build those hard requirements into the F-18E/F. Case in point, the USN accepted a much smaller radar (to the F-14 and ATF/N-ATF) and did not pay to have the F-14's IRST ported over to the F-18E/F. When China fields hundreds of J-20 this will change. Hence why the USN is now advocating that it stop buying more Super Hornets beyond 2021, and go all in on the FA-XX.
It is not very difficult to understand that the various US AESA radars reflect various levels of technical capability and performance based on the emphasis and overall goals. The F-16 and F-18 AESA aren't as capable as the F-22, F-15 or F-35 AESA. A good way to look at this would be to characterize the F-16 radars as the low end, the F-18E radars as mid end and the F-22/35/15 radars as the high end in terms of performance and capability. This doesn't mean that the F-16 and 18 radars are crap..just that they are not designed to be at the bleeding edge of performance based on trades made by the operator and the way they framed their requirements. Requirements represent what the operator chooses as far as trade space and what he is willing to bake in and pay for. The F-18 and F-16 radars are not that level of capability. In fact the UAE F-16 radar will be slightly better than USAF F-16 AESA radar. And the USAF is fine with that because it meets what they need for that platform for the ANG mission. Which is fine because these platforms are not expected to support the COCOM in the said missions. They'll do it but when the COCOM needs OCA platforms they don't go to the USN and demand additional Rhino presence in a theater. They ask the USAF to send F-22's or F-15's and now F-35's. This is why the F-35 is on its second Middile East / CENTCOM deployment and why the first deployment happened just as F-22's were rotated back to stateside for upgrades. F-18's and F-16's will perform those missions when required but that is far from saying they are optimized for it...in terms of platform and sensor performance.
The entire F-18E/F OCA/DCA argument stems from the fact that I claimed that the radar isn't optimized for it because the USN did not emphasize that in its requirement. To claim that they must have because it is the only platform they have doesn't mean much. Fact is that the the SH requirements provided just a slight increase (15-20%) in the radar size over baseline Hornet which puts it significantly below the level of sensor performance demanded from the likes of the F-35 and F-22. And of course the F-15 which benefits from having a lot more space for a large radar. This translates to other provisions. As such while the USN will do to extract performance out of the platfrom it will have to live with some limitations that trace back to the original requirements and decisions. Hence why the FA-XX is likely to look a lot different.
Fact is that the F-15/22/35 sport AESA radars that are of similar or more advanced technology to the APG-79, and have anywhere from 30-50% more T/R modules and associated provisions. This is very valuable because their requirements were more extensive for both traditional radar roles and non-traditional radar missions. The customer demanded this and was willing to pay for it. The F-16 and F-18E/F radars reflect a different trade and smaller sensors. These are compromises based on a whole host of factors that traded away one extreme end of the performance for affordability reasons (The F-18E/F is akin to a USN's F-16 block 60).