>Rafale EH mogged
>Mirage 2000H mogged
>Su-30MKI mogged
>Su-35S mogged
Kneel before the AWACS king

>>63806273 (OP)
God bless the Saab 340

Why would fighters that can do SOME radar/EW tasks be compared to a dedicated AWACS/EW platform?

Compare it to other planes with the same role.

>>63806273 (OP)
Argus and Globaleye are the only AWACS aircraft that actually look good

>>63806273 (OP)
Why don’t the latest radar arrays on AWACS rotate anymore?

>>63806315
AESA radars don't need to physically move to scan the same areas as regular PD-PESA ones

>>63806273 (OP)
>Pakis have 10+ AWACS
>India can afford Rafalels but no dedicated AWACS support rendering their jets moot
epic

>>63806315
>>63806321
They CAN rotate though allowing for faster scanning and other techniques.

>>63806273 (OP)
The butthurt norwegian on suicide watch.

>>63806332
I wonder if this is because of their face culture.
>fighters = show of force = good
>awacs = support = no show of force = bad

>>63806315
To elaborate on what the other anon said, AESA radars have electronic beam steering so because the AESA antenna is made up of discrete tiny transmit/receive elements, you can have them each emit signals of different frequencies individually or coordinate only areas of the antenna to emit different frequencies from others etc. Because of this you can have the antenna as a whole point the beam in a +/- 60 degree area or so by having the radar waves being emitted from different parts interfere with each other in specific ways and with different delays so that the beam points wherever you want. Mechanical scan radars could only emit in the direction of the antenna since there was one emitter so they had to rotate to scan in a particular direction

>>63806360
And for reference some AESAs are mounted on a rotating mount since AESA arrays tend to rapidly lose power as they reach the edge of their scan ranges. A rotating mount lets you maintain a target in the center so you can maintain more transmit/receive elements both emitting at and receiving signal from the target

if you need to rely on awacs, you've already lost, as it's a crutch.

Looks better on a jet platform.

>>63806332
India has awacs, they’re just not data linked into their western equipment

>>63806360
>>63806371
>because the AESA antenna is made up of discrete tiny transmit/receive elements, you can have them each emit signals of different frequencies individually or coordinate only areas of the antenna to emit different frequencies from others etc.
Do you need to alter the frequency, or just the phase (the time offset) of the signal as it leaves the individual elements?
With enough emitters, you can produce a nice and clean wave going in a specific direction that is not directly away from the plane of the array.

This shit is easy enough with modern electronics that you can order prototyping kits for it. I suspect high-end military radars are somewhat better than those, though.

>>63806292
You forget that OP is retarded.

>>63806273 (OP)
This goofy looking radar config is actually so successful that others copied the damn design

>>63806516
>t.

>>63806524

>>63806531

>>63806332
that's a lot of awacs for a turd world shithole, most turd world chairforces only have like 1-2

>>63806427
Meh.

;)

>>63806332
India has Russian AWACS that can't talk to their French fighters. So you're correct, but also you're wrong since India has more AWACS than Russia as of a week ago.

>>63806527
I'm american, OP is just retarded for comparing fighter variants with a dedicated AWACS platform.

KJ-2000/3000
A-50
EL/W-2085
E-7 Wedgetail
DRDO AEW&CS

etc

>>63806573
>India has Russian AWACS that can't talk to their French fighters
It's not russian

It's an A-50 shell, but it uses the Israeli EL/W-2090 radar platform.

>>63806575
I don't think he's comparing them, he's just saying it ended in the death of them. Misusing language though.

Realistically how do you counter this guy?

>>63806625
Nato codename: GAYFISH

>>63806496
>Do you need to alter the frequency, or just the phase (the time offset) of the signal as it leaves the individual elements?
Just the time offset. Phased arrays are just that.

PESA can do that too.

>>63806292
>Why would fighters that can do SOME radar/EW tasks be compared to a dedicated AWACS/EW platform?
I think it's less about those fighters having an AWACS role and more that the SAAB AWACS very recently assisted in shooting down all of those jets. That's still a bit apples and oranges style comparison, but with the caveat the apple at least shanked some oranges with a knife.

Though speaking of fighters in the AWACS role.

>>63806668
Then why is he saying
> Rafale EH mogged
> Mirage 2000H mogged
Is ukraine shooting down Rafales and Mirages now?

It is still not too late to invest in SAAB.

>>63806668
><< So, do you have a reason to fight yet? Buddy. >>

>>63806691
Pakistan has SAAB Awacs I think the idea is.

>>63806583
>It's an A-50 shell, but it uses the Israeli EL/W-2090 radar platform.
Even worse.

>>63806351
The average Indian height has been decreasing since Modi came to power.
> https://www.bione.in/blog/is-indias-average-height-declining/
> https://scroll.in/article/1006468/around-the-world-people-are-getting-taller-so-why-are-indian-heights-on-the-decline

The BJP government and other Indians have also poured a lot of money and attention towards "cow dung technology". No joke. Turn on captions:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCB4gpW8heA&ab_channel=TheDeshbhakt

>>63806691
>Is ukraine shooting down Rafales and Mirages now?
Ukies ain't. Pakis were doing their last round of poo flinging with India. Both use variants of SAAB turbo props (Ukies use the short 340, Pakis use the long 2000) equipped with the same Erieye AWACS system. Bork technology seems to work pretty good.

>>63806843
I just realized that the French are probably not so happy with the Swedes in that regard.

Buy SAAB if you want only the best military hardware!

>>63806864
Eeeh. The French have been selling their weapon systems to knuckle dragging morons since time immemorial. The price of doing business that way is every so often your stuff gets blown up when your customers get into fights with guys who are merely midwits. Besides. Now the Frogs can argue the Indians should really hurry up with procurement of the Meteor for the Rafale. Which France AND Sweden both have a stake in.

>>63806864
When it comes to military procurement it's a doggie dog world.

>>63806935
>enemies use swedish systems
>buy new weapon from ally
>swedes co-developed it

>>63806794
>Even worse.
Don't underestimate the power of Kabbalah sorcery. Besides, the *real* suspect part of the Indian AWACS fleet is the half that uses Indian designed and built systems and hardware.

>>63806573
This is retarded. Why not throw a 100 $20 / hour durgasoft programmers
at the problem and glue the data links together?

>>63807030
they probably just copied the isreali shit

>For the first time in military aviation history, a Western-made F-16 fighter jet has shot down a Russian Su-35 in an air-to-air engagement.

>The Ukrainian Air Force deployed a Dutch-modified F-16AM, supported by a Swedish Saab 340 AEW&C airborne early warning aircraft. The AWACS platform reportedly detected the Russian aircraft 200–300 kilometers from the border and relayed targeting data in real time to the F-16.

shows the power of cooperation

https://united24media.com/latest-news/ukraines-f-16-destroys-russian-su-35-in-first-air-battle-backed-by-swedish-awacs-8983

>>63807176
>they probably just copied the isreali shit
>Lets just take the parts of a giant circular radar dish, and shove them inside a much smaller rectangular radar dish.
That certainly would be a novel way for the Indian MIC to have royally fucked up doing anything again. I was gonna give them some benefit of the doubt and assume they mostly just fucked up the software for the data linkups.

>>63807298
EL/W-2090 is a development of EL/M-2075
The only difference is it's a rotating array instead of having each half fixed on the side of the aircraft, the arrays themselves though are likely largely the same.

>>63807336
>EL/W-2090 is a development of EL/M-2075
Sure. It makes sense for Israel Aerospace to work with one of their existing proven designs. None of that's in India's Netra though, that's all domestic make (aside from the Brazillian jet they bolted it onto). So who knows what super basic functionality it actually has.

Is radar the new meta???

>>63806661
PESA SHEIT

>>63806555
Brilliant remark

>>63806527
Why did you post a selfie?

>>63806843
So the Pakis somehow managed to datalink SAAB AWACS to chink J-10?

>>63806568
>Only three prototypes were built before the program was cancelled.
Truly we live in the worst timeline.

>>63807547
Always has been, the Gnatsis lost their air superiority for slacking on radar development.

>>63807671
They probably had both OEMs work on integration together. It’s not weird to do this, India just neglects to because they are skinflints and integration is an optional cost.

>>63806291
Good morning Saab

Ukes have received more radar and satellite help recently. They got a whole system from Italy, apparently. The Japanese have provided some important stuff.

They have quite the network now.

>>63807815
Kek.

>>63807154
>Radar short circuits before the plane pitches directly towards the ground

>>63807336
>hyyyuuuck
lmao sorry I can't take this thing seriously with that nose

>>63807841
cool it with the antisemitism

>>63807815
Kek.

>>63807815
(You)

>>63807493
I'm just saying India had access to the EL/W-2090 during the development of their own AESA, and likely based it on that system.

>>63807671
>>63807809
No, they also fly the ZDK-03, it's was probably the one who locked into the targets.

>>63806568
That thing looks like a fucking nightmare to fly

>>63806568
>Madcap
Fitting.

how many operational A-50s does russia have left after the web thingy

>>63807841
oh you seen nothing yet

>>63808217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqLuEAmNW8

>>63808355

>>63807841
don't forget, sometimes it also wears a hat

>>63807841
Don’t make fun of him, he just got sting by a bee :(

>>63806351
Its because of culture but nothing specific to Indians, you see the same shit play out everywhere you find a strongman in power because the strongman only really cares about looking good and doesn't want to waste money on boring shit like support capabilites

>>63807298
in my (admittedly rather limited) experience with Indians the issue was most likely planning and co-ordination
There's a lot of half finished overpasses and random incomplete infrastructure projects in the Indian city I visited which is there, according the to a local engineer I spoke to, because lots of people start building shit without really working through the long term details of the project which results in stuff becoming redundant or just running out of money before it gets finished
Extrapolating this mentality to air planning leads me to assume that while the Indians had AWACS and linking software, they may well have sent that mirage in without taking the time to plan and set up a proper air mission for it first, resulting in it getting caught off guard by an undetected BVR attack
In my mind, there is no good reason the Rafale shouldn't have been able to avoid that missile had it seen it coming

Does America sell their AWACS? They sell Orions and Poseidons but not Hawkeyes or any other sort.

>>63808954
don't frogs operate hawkeyes? they're the only other country on the planet that can operate them in their intended role

>>63808906
Do you really think they're more likely to complete their software bridges than their hardware bridges?

>>63808954
E-3s has been exported to France, Saudi Arabia and UK. Also NATO i guess

>>63808954
The E-2 Hawkeye is primarily a carrier launched AWACS, we only have 1 ally that has a catapult equipped carrier, the french, who DO operate the E-2. Beyond that Japan, Eygpt, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, and Israel all operate, or have operated, the E-2 at one point or another, though they all operate them from land, not carriers.

>>63809022
Weird that America is stuck with the E-2 and E-3

The E-7 looks buttugly

>>63808995
In this case yes because we are talking about a government backed procurement program instead of some local official promising the plebs construction jobs in exchange for votes

>>63809028
They are heavily upgraded compared to the base model tho. Much like how Saabs new Global eye is miles away from the 1990s Saab 340 Awacs, despite looking similar.

>>63808954
Australian designed E-7 Wedgetail is being sold to replace the E-3 Sentry. USAF decided in 2021 that the E-3 was no longer capable and that the Australian Wedgetail was the only platform capable of meeting the USAF needs.

>>63809076
She's a beautiful bird, and the plane is nice too
The aboriginals call her Bunjil, and say she created the world

>>63809084
She sure is. Australia operates six aircraft and I believe the USAF will purchase up to 26, to start delivery in 2027.

>>63809084
ptoo

>>63807658
>selfie

>>63806978
We appriceate your business :)

>>63806273 (OP)
gee what happened to the one the pakis used, I wonder

>>63809140
They use several, Mukesh, not just one.

>>63807815
10/10 would kek again

What kind of cancers will the guys operating these radar planes get?

>>63809076
Will the Australians deliver the E-7s to America a decade and a half later only after all the needs of the Australian airforce have been met?

>>63808081
Unlikely, those ZDK-03 (airframe and radar) are sort of old and sort of shit as they were bought from a much less advanced China. They have been decomissioned for a while. Paf doubled down on Saab gear after 2019 because they offered better interoperability and availability. There is news they will get upgraded to a more modern standard but this is a recent development and there is no announcement that they have been recomissioned.

>>63809590
Australia already has its six E-7's. But I can't find if it's Australia or the US who will build them. Australia's first two planes were wholly built in the US, then the other four were only modified in Australia.

>>63809590
You don't hold out on the subs, we dont hold out on the AWACS
simple as

>awacs dont rotate anymore

truly the only good time to use SOUL vs SOULESS.

>>63810122
E-2D would like a word

>>63809029
>we are talking about some federal official promising the plebs SWE jobs in exchange for votes

>>63809941
>But I can't find if it's Australia or the US who will build them
The first two built for Australia were built in Washington state.
All of the USAFs are being built in Washington. Currently two rapid prototypes are being built at the Washington plant.

>>63809941
>>63810195
Who created them? Who owns most of the IP?

>>63811578
Boeing, just because the Australian division was heading things doesn't mean the IP isn't still owned by the parent company.

And again, US Boeing was already involved pretty heavily from the start, it's why the first 2 of the E-7s for Australia were built in the US.

>>63811596
That's not necessarily how IP works. When it comes to the arms sector, if a national subsidiary creates something, that IP is under the jurisdiction of that nation.

The UK doesn't control Sweden's BAE or the US BAE. The latter states can reject arms deals as they wish.

>>63808411
oy fucking vey

>>63808841
heh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb3NztkFVJc
DOGS ARE GAY, SOI AND REDDIT, I H-A-T-E DOGS
(mostly because of their owners leaving shit)

>(You)

>>63811611
Yes but in the case of Boeing Defence Australia they work directly with the Boeing Defense, Space & Security branch that is in the US. This program was being jointly developed with Boeing in the US and Boeing themselves are obviously happy to apply that IP and institutional knowledge to the USAF's E-7As. Further the "meat and potatoes" of the E-7 is the MESA radar which is a Northrup Grumman system that they are free to sell to any customer the US government says they can. The RAAF had BAE Systems Australia develop the EWSP (Electronic Warfare Self-Protection suite) but even that is based on BAE Systems' longstanding work on EWSPs for other platforms and isn't something Australia owns.

The E-7 has always been mostly American technology licensed and in some cases modified for use on the E-7. Australia's primary role was as financier and they developed a fair amount of the software and mission systems that are specific to austrlia's existing systems which is why a lot of the E-7A development for the USAF is on changing around some of the mission systems and software to be more in line with the USAF systems in place.

>>63811712
browns like you hate dogs because you were raped by wild dogs growing up in your shithole. It's a pretty well known thing.

>>63812186
That and the plane itself is just a 737, and other than the fact that it's a really good platform the other thing is the lines have been rolling for 40 years so you can get them without too much fuss.

>>63812186
>>63812259
Yeah the E-7 was designed for Australia to meet RAAF requirements, it just so happens that it's really good and now other nations want the same plane and design.
How much money, if any, Australia gets from other nations purchasing the E-7 is unknown.

>>63809076
Sad thing is Hegseth has stated that the E-7 is probably not going to happen, because "Space based ISR is better"

>>63812441
Almost none if any at all, especially if they're swapping out for localized software/mission systems which are the primary parts australia actually developed.

>>63806496
Modern milgear does some very impressive things. Pulse length, phase, timing, even individual emitter temperature correction and minute relativity corrections for correct frequency-wave interaction at the computed target distance.

Would be impossible to pick out 6db over noise and collate that into a verifiable return with just basic pulse timing. You can't hear a finely tuned radio picking up morse code on 6db over noise. Go check some websdrs and try to find some 4-7db weak morse transmissions on the lower 40M band as an exercise, ask yourself if you're really seeing a signal on that waterfall visual or just fooling yourself.

bump

>>63806427
>>63806531
The next one is even better

>>63816059
>ywn fly a business jet packed with radars causing immense butthurt among your enemies
Why go on at this point

Also, is that a targeting pod?

>>63816290
Big hump in the middle is the Seaspray 7500E maritime surveillance radar which has SAR (synthetic aperture radar) and ground-oriented moving target indication modes.
The smaller hump in the front is an electro-optical/infrared sensor likely used to find surface threats seeing as it's mounted underneath.
The platform is intended to fill an airborne radar role as well as being able to do ground and maritime surveillance.

>>63812186
Are you assuming or is this in writing somewhere? Maybe they each own 50% of IP of Boeing Australia's creations and have equal say? That's the most generous scenario I can imagine.

>>63806273 (OP)
Erieye and Globaleye are so good the competition just straight up copied the whole design.

>>63806273 (OP)
how does that radar even work? does it shoot sideways?

I love them I love them I love them.

>>63819876
>Northwest
What a blast from the past.

>>63806273 (OP)
>propellers
Into the trash it goes.

>>63819578
Lol why the fuck would Australia get any of the IP?

They didn't make the 737 airframe
They didn't make the MESA radar
They didn't make the VAST majority of the systems used to build it, they just specced out a design and mostly US companies came up to fulfil those requirements.

Again, Australia was almost entirely removed from development work outside of software and mission systems that integrate with australias existing systems, which isn't something anyone but Australia cares about because they need to change that shit out to get it working with their OWN existing systems.

I get you're Australian and trying to bat for the "home team" but in this case Australia is the customer who set out requirements then went to Boeing US and Northrop to get the majority of systems.

>>63819788
Yes. It's some sort of phased array, so it can "turn" to some degree by electronically adjusting the phase offset between individual elements, as shown in >>63806496

>>63820253
>Lol why the fuck would Australia get any of the IP?
Did you miss this part? >>63819578
>Maybe they each own 50% of IP of **Boeing Australia's creations** and have equal say?

Is Boeing Australia exclusively doing assembly work? Do they not have creations of their own as well? Even if they did only do assembly work, the overall principle applies. This ain't the 1800s anymore.
If the US wanted to sell a Boeing Australia made product to someone that Australia doesn't want getting it, then they have veto rights. The US can't transfer arms from Aussie soil without Australia's approval.

>>63820253
>I get you're Australian and trying to bat for the "home team" but in this case Australia is the customer who set out requirements then went to Boeing US and Northrop to get the majority of systems
No, I'm not Australian. Nothing about my posting suggested I was.

>>63820710
>Is Boeing Australia exclusively doing assembly work?
After the first two were built in the US.

Again, Boeing Defense Australia went to Boeing in the US for the actual design work, BDA and the RAAF simply set out their requirements.

Even if they have ANY IP rights it would be extremely minimal and pertaining ONLY to the systems Australia ACTUALLY did themselves, IE software and missions systems, the two things most customers buying the E-7 end up replacing those with their OWN software and mission systems that integrate with their existing infrastructure.

>>63820253
>>63820710
>>63820712
>>63820866
NTA, but I asked an AI.
> While the idea of Australia receiving royalties for E-7 sales to other nations has been floated, there is no concrete, public evidence to confirm this. The benefits for Australia appear to be more in the realm of sustained domestic industry, strategic influence, and the development of sovereign capabilities, rather than direct cash royalty payments.
So sounds like Australia has talked about getting royalties for the E-7, but no evidence exists to suggest anyone has actually paid Australia these Royalties.

>>63820890
>but I asked an AI.
GTFO retard

>>63820907
tbf, that kind of shit is exactly what AI is good at, I'm not asking it to interpret anything, just go through available public records and see if anything can confirm E-7 royalty payments to Australia.
I'm sorry this has upset you.

>>63820890
I am that anon, and I wouldn't exactly trust AI either.

Though it does more or less confirm what I was saying.

>>63820922
And how do you know it's not just making up a wrong answer that you find too agreeable to double check?

>>63820952
I'll let it run a deep research report for a few minutes and see what it can find (if anything).

>>63820977
>>63820952

>>63821002
>>63820977
>>63820952
> there is no direct evidence in the provided research material to confirm that the Australian government receives explicit royalty payments or licensing fees from Boeing for international sales of the aircraft to third-party nations, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Turkey, or South Korea.
> The benefits accruing to Australia from the E-7 program's international success are predominantly indirect economic advantages

>>63820977
>"How do I know the AI isn't just making up a wrong answer? I'll ask it! It has to tell me, after all"
I'd say I'm surprised, but why start using your brain now, right?

>>63821210
Hey, it showed the sources it used. Feel free to do your own research proving it wrong.

I'll wait the day or two it'll take for you to sort through that many news sources and primary documents.

>>63821210
It's pretty obviously correct. There is no public information that confirms Australia makes any money at all from E-7 sales to other nations.
You could maybe argue there are classified/non-public sources that can confirm Australia is getting paid in some way, but they're not available publicly and no news site has reported on this happening to even use as a second-hand source.
Is it really that hard for you to believe Australia is getting nothing from E-7 sales?

>>63807255
cute