eagle1Scorpion, I basically agree with most of your points. Just two remarks
At times were performance and capability is largely driven by software, with the hardware laying the foundation of capability only things like these may happen. It doesn’t mean that Captor was that bad back then, but it wasn’t perfect either and there was still a lot of room for improvement even without altering the hardware. Reliability issues in some instances were criticised by Armasuisse for good reason
Agreed but one should not overstate the “software” part even though it does play a role. Adding new capabilities of course yes, refining the performance again yes. But I don’t believe it will dramatically change your radar “pure” detecting performance unless you completely messed up the initial variant of the software. It is perhaps a flawed perception from my part but I had the feeling that some starting by Lake of course (sorry to mention him again) and referring to his swiss evaluation article used this “software” argument in an abusive way to find excuses and downplaying RBE2 good performances in the swiss evaluation. It also implied that the RBE2 PESA was not getting similar support than the captor M which is wrong as well.
I wished you could read latest Air Fan who deals with rafale standards. I noted that despite it is less advertised than the big visible upgrade like AESA and the like the rafale program is getting the same kind of incremental software and hardware improvements than the typhoon with MMI improvement, existing capability improvements thanks to software patch and hardware improvements with a very extensive flight test campaigns. Really it goes quite into the details and you see that the rafale is also a system that is evolving all the time with the F3.3 and F3.3′ standards cleared.
That the RBE2 had reliability and performance issues in its earlier days is not a “Lake” invention, but has been reported, albeit without great detail. Some of your chaps said yourself that the performance and reliability had considerably improved with the F2 standard already and there were no major hardware changes involved as far as I can judge. Feel free to correct me on the later part.
You are correct. But we are talking from the LF1 standard which was cleared in late 90’s early 2000s that was needed as an urgent F8 crusader replacement and for a limited number of airframe. When the initial software variant has issues (and probably hardware too) you can expect significant performance and reliability increases. In 2008 for the Typhoon I don’t think we can draw a parallel with this situation : it was a more mature radar than the rbe2 at that time and last but not least it is a Mech scan radar which is/was probably less challenging to develop as this technology was relatively new for european jet fighters.
eagle1You are on Keypub Mrmalaya… 😀 comparing A vs B is what this forum is all about. As long as there is a minimum courtesy and that you are not intending to troll with arguments without sense and support/link there is really no harm. There must be a place like this. If you don’t like it here are other typhoon forum which are like a very clean garden but nevertheless interesting in their own category.
eagle1Two things: first, Swiss evaluation is vastly outdated, as Scorpion explained. Second, there have been a lot of evaluations and a lot of exercises, not only the Swiss one.
You have posted a video of French test pilot… I could quote a lot of statements about longer range of Captor over RBE2, but why? Is widely accepted. There will be always exceptions. French sources says that RBE2 AESA increase range by 50%… but you have to realize that previous RBE2 PESA had short range. So, 50% more of a poor range it’s not much more in comparison with other radars that already had much bigger range than RBE2 PESA.
How do you explain that, again according to French sources, Rafale needed the AESA’s increase of range to benefit from Meteor range advantages? Because it wasn’t the case with the M-Captor.
Bye!
The 50% range increase figure is outdated. Operational evaluation has shown a doubling of the range compared to PESA RBE2 with better than expected performance. This was relatively widely reported and advertised :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219207[/ATTACH]
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-first-aesa-equipped-rafale-heads-for-squadron-service-387296/
Best quote comes from Lcl Royer in Air Fan n°415 of June 2013 page 36 :
(…) “les gains sont très spectaculaires avec une porté doublée, un champ de balayage plus large et une résistance accrue au brouyage et au leurrage. Le gros avantage pour l’équipage est c’est que l’ensemble des commandes et des symbologies restent inchangé.” (…)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219206[/ATTACH]
It is also reported by flight global :
Benefits of the new system include a reported doubling of detection range against airborne threats and an ability to produce ground imagery for support air-to-ground operations. It also forms part of proposals to export the Rafale to international customers.
It is also reported in Air international :
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8985/asra3.jpg
And it is also reported in Air & Cosmos (Nicolas 10 beat me on that one) :
http://www.air-cosmos.com/defense/rafale-l-aesa-en-septembre-a-mont-de-marsan.html
So starting with a PESA radar of roughly 100Km – 130km range (As the Rbe2 PESA was said to be comparable in range to first gen RDY radar) it gives “roughly” a more than 200 Km radar range for the AESA RBE2 against a “standard” fighter size target.
*******************************
As far as the Swiss evaluation is concerned I wouldn’t say it is outdated. Sure both the RBE2 PESA and the Captor Have evolved with new softwares refinements, hardware obsolescent treatments but to imply the overall performance would have been dramatically changed like going for a complete new technology or design is clearly an overstatement. Besides as I said if Euroradar couldn’t come with a properly developed M-scan radar in 2008 & 2009 and has to wait 2013 to get a somewhat “finished” design it should clearly be a wake up call to typhoon radar capabilities.
Lake was quick to advertise Captor M in the Singaporean evaluation in 2004 and dismiss rafale radar performance with the usual unbacked/unnamed claims but of course in the swiss evaluation it is all about excuses like “it was not a properly working radar but now I swear everything has changed and you will not believe your eyes…”
eagle1The French test pilot knows this from where exactly? Has the Swiss breached rules of confidentially and unveilled priviledged information of competitors to another one? Funny enough that the Typhoon was evaluated after Rafale! The leaked results are yet something else, but they are also almost 5 years old and in the field of avionics and sensors not fully representative anymore for either design Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon. If the Swiss would repeat the evaluation nowadays it will certainly come to a different result, whether the ratios will changes considerably or not and in what direction is difficult to say.
Not necessarily Scorpion, rafale and typhoon often practice against or along each others so it is relatively easy to assess each other radar range. The idea isn’t to be ultra accurate but it is not difficult to Know if your radar has less range, more range or much more range than the competition…No need to bring so called leaks into the equation.
Secondly, although captor and rbe2 pesa have both evolved since this swiss competition I would like to point out that rumors “leaked” from who you know regarding both radar performances where much older and participated to shape the internet crowd opinion on both systems. So when the typhoon could track F16 at very long range for the Singaporean evaluation circa 2004 this is fine but in 2008 for the swiss evaluation it is suddenly not fine…It’s also fine when an infamous journalist says the rbe2 is “dead end” in 2003 or 2005 but when the swiss praise the rbe2 quality it is not accepted.
I am just trying to underline that many beliefs that are repeated on rafale pesa vs captor are unfunded and takes their origin even further than the swiss evaluation.
Last but not least, I would say that if Eurofighter Gmbh could not bring a mature Captor-M in 2008, and that it is only now in 2013 that we can talk of the captor M as a somewhat finished and accomplished product well…Something must have gone terribly wrong and we should make a wake up call regarding the assessment some have of the captor-M. I mean they must wait 2013 to get a properly functioning mech scan radar that could be competitive in the swiss assesment 5 years ago when the industry is now moving massively towards AESA ?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t ignore the qualities of the Captor M. I am just pointing that it is overhyped by some typhoon supporters who view it as a kind of “concord”. It is a modern Mech radar sure but in 2013 it is hardly impressive. Just to put things into context.
eagle1I
You are evil, Kovy 😀 😉
It’s more like a last generation DVD with all extras vs. a basic Blu-ray. The trend is to Blu-ray, yes. In general, advantage is for Blu-ray, but not always.VHS has no advantage over Blu-ray, a big difference between M-scan and E-scan. Captor has more FoV (Field of View) and side resolution that any AESA with fixed antenna. Also, it has more modes (specially A/G) and it’s more mature that recent AESAs, like the Rafale one. Talking about this one, I bet Captor still has more range than the RBE2 AESA, specially due to antenna diameter. I.e.: M-Captor doesn’t need a range increment to benefit from Meteor advantages, but RBE2 PESA needed that change.
As they have explained, AESA technology is better that “mechanical” one, but there are AESAs and AESAs, as there are also different m-scan capable radars.
An AESA doesn’t give superiority by itself, as EEUU showed recently with the same model of aircraft (operational USNavy testing didn’t demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between S/Hornets with m-scan APG-73 and those equipped with AESA APG-79.)
There are people who think that a fighter carrying AESA (even a legacy one) becomes automatically better than other fighter without AESA. That’s a big mistake and simplification.Bye!
French test pilot who performed the swiss evaluation with the RBE2 AESA this time declared that they had much more radar range than the competition (ie: typhoon and gripen). See at 35s-45s of the video below:
eagle1Halloweene, do you have information about this subject from Joint Warrior? I would appreciate it, thanks! And, yes, range do not mean a lot by itself, but it’s an important radar parameter. I wanted to show that, in contrast with “VHS-BluRay” comparison, an M-scan radar still can have some advantages over E-scan, specially if the M-scan is an excellent radar like Captor, not an average one, and the AESA is limited (shorter & fixed antenna, inmature).
Bye!
The Captor-M is overhyped. Sure it is a powerful mech radar and is well adapted to Air interdiction waiting for AESA radar but beyond that it can’t compete with E-scan on a wide number of parameters just like the reverse is true.
The choice of keeping an old school mech radar vs an E-scan radar depends on which are your priorities : sheer range and angular coverage or multirole performance and better overall situation awareness (mode interlacing, track while scan etc…) ? Also don’t forget that Range and angular coverage can be overcome in many situations with link 16 and modern RWR. Not always perfect or available but still…It has to be taken into account.
The captor M is probably one of the best (vs last iteration of RDY for india?) or the best M scan simply because this technology is almost abandoned by the rest of the industry. (I mean for top of the line jet fighters).
At the end of the day if you look at the swiss technical evaluation report it was the RBE2 PESA which quality was praised, not the Captor M. So much for the Captor M reputation !
eagle1Current rafale development programs known :
TREGEDAC : passive detection improvement via aircraft networking and traingulation
INCAS : Spectra improvement including GaN + active decoy against Ka band missiles
CARAA : improved RBE2 AESA with new modes and better performance
DERIDA : stealth increase
GANIMEDE : GaN modules industrialization
THEO : Engine upgrade
DARTAGNAN : Engine upgrade
eagle1eagle1,
thanks.
My French is not very good; could somebody translate a brief summary?
Is there any indications on the performance increase by switching to GaN?
Also, will only SPECTRA benefit from the GaN? Will the RBE2 not make the switch?
Performance in emmission to be multiplied by 5. it is written in bold “Une puissance emise multipliee par 5″.
Basically there is currently a PEA (de risking program) called “Ganim�de” to develop X-band modules prototypes which would be representative of serial manufactured modules. They say it should be ready in about two to three years (2014-2015). The article (october 2012) also says GaN first production process would be ready for 2013.
This progress in GaN modules manufacturing will see a first application with the rafale in the PEA Incas (Spectra capability increase program) that will see a demonstrator flying late 2014. Note : Incas program is also about an active decoy against Ka band missile.
Air & Cosmos also report that RBE2 antennas is likely to take advantage of this technology at some point but don’t give any date. It also reports the possibility to implement “smart skins” made of GaN modules in an even longer term.
********************************
On a personnal note, I am pretty confident that this feature should be included in the F3R standard in 2018-2019. The F3R standard states “improved spectra” and one can reasonnably speculate that GaN modules is meant.
eagle1also don’t forget SPECTRA with GaN antennas to fly in 2014 :
http://imageshack.us/a/img855/7597/ac2y.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img17/8793/ac1dl.jpg
eagle1Those programs are quite a good news. I feared that once the F3+ or F3R standard were reached we would not see a lot of major capabilities added. Finger crossed to see them materialize soon.
On another topic I was at the paris air show saturday and sunday. Thanks to a friend of a friend I had access to the guy in charge of the meteor program at the DGA and who performed several test flights in the back seet. Nothing extraordiary to report : several separation tests in various conditions already occured and first meteor shooting and first guided meteor is being prepared. probably for 2014-2015.
A part that the SU35 stole the show this time. Very impressive, especally the T/W ratio and the acceleration in the vertical.
eagle1These points only echo the views regarding WVR combat in the years to come, with things like IRST, HOBS/HMD,Spectra/DAS like systems…the chances of one fighter having a very significant advantage over many engagements is going to very hard in real war like scenarios…In a strict WVR engagements between F-16’s and F-22’s , it would be hard for the Raptor to achieve a very significant edge in kill ratio over multiple engagements and both fighters would be risking mutual kills …
That’s why the Mica-IR make the difference and somewhat makes irrelevant all these tricks. You don’t even have to venture in a deadly and uncertain merge which are now a russian roulette with HMD, HOBS, TVC etc…
If your EM missile fails for whatever reasons, you can instantly switch to the mica IR or even fire the mica IR in the first place or in a salvo with mica IR and mica EM.
eagle1It seems that HUD BFM video is the new trend…Here is another fresh one vs a F16 during last tiger meet :
eagle1No point making such a long answer when I said “I don’t mean the ALR-94 can’t or is inferior but it is less “proven”/advertised than spectra”.
We all know we don’t have the full picture and precise datas to compare such systems. I just pointed out that this feature was well known and well advertised for the rafale and even by independent test pilot. You assumed wrongly that I hinted the ALR-94 can’t which was not my point.
In fact my point was the capabilities described for the ALR-94 are routinely performed with spectra which is a different thing than saying A is better than B.
eagle1The ALR-94 is a part of the EW Suite, i am not sure what exactly its EW Function is as an offensive system (Jamming etc) but it is supposed to work with all onboard sensors to conduct that mission, including IFDL (providing Sensor information to another F-22 pilot (or F-18G , F-35 pilot in the future etc) ), LPI APG-77 etc … Spectra is a much broader system compared to the ALR-94 hence david mentioned that they are not exactly comparable…Perhaps a better comparison would be to the F-35’s Integrated Passive Suite rather then the ALR-94. The point here is that the APG-77,ALR-94 can carry out the entire spectrum of the F-22’s mission i.e. active or passive detection, tracking and targeting of enemy fighters in BVR combat, Electronic warfare and Ground attack are of course a capability that is an incremental upgrade…
It is worth mentioning that Spectra & sensor fusion has demonstrated to a wider extent than ALR-94 long range passive kills (BVR and AtG). In exercises but also in real life operations in Libya. I don’t mean the ALR-94 can’t or is inferior but it is less “proven”/advertised than spectra :
1) It was demonstrated and reported during exercises including ATLC in 2009. Post n�1372 :
And, December 6, a MICA has been assigned its target – indeed virtually destroyed – only with the SPECTRA system.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?137433-Rafale-News/page92
2) It was demonstrated with independent test pilot who flew the rafale (post 4337 and 4339) :
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?137433-Rafale-News/page290
3) It was demonstrated during real life operation in Lybia where the rafales could take down mobile SAM sites thanks to Spectra and AASM AtG weapon.
From dassault’s fox 3 :
Such was the confidence of the
French aircrews in their new
mount that all missions were
conducted without any support
from dedicated electronic warfare
and SEAD (Suppression of Enemy
Air Defences) assets: thanks to its
Spectra state-of-the-art electronic
warfare/self-defence suite, the
Rafale was able to operate at
will in a dangerous environment,
against a dense network of deadly
surface-to-air missile systems.
Even more significant is the fact
that the Rafale was able to accurately
locate enemy air-defence
systems and engage them.”“Such is the quality of the Spectra
electronic warfare suite that the
Rafale literally disappeared from
the radar screens of the Libyan Air
Force while performing �soft kills� on
the enemy radar systems. Spectra
relies on advanced jamming modes
and jamming techniques to defeat
hostile weapon systems and to
hide the progression and whereabouts
of the fighter.”
and :
[…] The greatest operational value of the AASM is that it is a true stand-off weapon, which means it can be fired safely from outside the range of existing
enemy short and medium range air defence systems, whether at high or low
altitude. According to Lieutenant General Patrick Chareix, of the French Air Force
CDAOA staff, this fact was proven on several occasions during the initial phase of the interdiction campaign over Libya where the Rafales operated without the need of any dedicated SEAD asset �and
to the big surprise of the USAF theatre commander on one specific action against a Libyan SA-3 �Goa� SAM site in March 2011!.
http://rafalenews.blogspot.fr/2011/05/in-press-latinaero-articles-about.html
4) There are ongoing developments to even improve this capability (just revealed):
http://rafalenews.blogspot.fr/2013/06/rafale-developement-tragedac-and-lea.html
eagle1First AESA-equipped Rafale heads for squadron service
[…]The first aircraft equipped with the new antenna will be delivered to the forces in late June or early July,” says Bruno Carrara, Rafale programme director for RBE2 radar supplier Thales. The sensor in question was delivered to Dassault’s final assembly site in Merignac at the end of 2012, he adds[…]
Sign In
