I am not saying the contrary…That’s why the rafale is getting an AESA for instance. Just that as long you have a coherence between the weapons you have to support and your radar range it can be regarded as “sufficient”. More is fine but it should be considered with the combination of other sensors. With sensor fusion it is not as clear cut as you would expect. Otherwise we would assist to a race of “who has the bigger nose?”

The fact that the capability debate has narrowed to the “nose size” is again IMO a way to dodge some obvious weaknesses with the Typhoon. That the new leitmotiv of some typhoon supporters or rafale hatters. I’m just saying look at the number of things the rafale can do and the typhoon can’t and you will understand. I would add that in exercises this relative lack of range compared to the typhoon or the SH block 2 did not seem to be an issue to say the least. And that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be happy with more radar range. Just that we should look the broader picture of multi-sensor fusion, tactics etc

There are other sources but here are the two I could find quickly

A Stealthier Rafale?

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 4/5/2010 5:30 AM CDT

Our colleagues at Air & Cosmos report that the French government is funding a demonstration of improved stealth technology for the Dassault Rafale fighter, with a focus on active cancellation techniques. The story itself is not online but is being discussed at the Key Military Forum.

Active cancellation means preventing a radar from detecting a target by firing back a deception signal with the same frequency as the reflection, but precisely one-half wavelength out of phase with it. Result: the returned energy reaching the radar has no frequency and can’t be detected.

It’s quite as difficult as it sounds. Some reports have suggested that the so called SP-3 or ZSR-62 “radar jamming device” planned in the early days of the B-2 program was an active cancellation system. It did not work and was scrapped in 1987-88. In 2005, Northrop Grumman paid $62 million to settle a False Claims Act case involving the system.

This may not be the first French attempt to implement AC on the Rafale. At the Paris air show in 1997, I interviewed a senior engineer at what was then Dassault Electronique, about the Rafale’s Spectra jamming system. He remarked that Spectra used “stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible… There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real LO aircraft.”

“You mean active cancellation?” I asked. The engineer suddenly looked like someone who deeply regretted what he had just said, and declined any further comment. (As Hobbes once put it after pouncing on an unsuspecting Calvin: “We tigers live for moments like that.”*)

The fact that a new demonstrator is being contemplated suggests that the technology may not have been up to the job the first time round – but since AC depends on electronics and processing, that picture may have changed. MBDA and Thales, which absorbed Dassault Electronique and is now the prime contractor on Spectra, have since confirmed that they are working on active cancellation for missiles.

The whole Spectra program has been a major venture, including the construction of four new indoor test ranges, including the colossal Solange RCS range discussed in Ares in 2007. That facility will probably play a major role in the new demonstrator program.

* It should be noted that Calvin’s response was “Not for long you don’t.”

Paths for a future F4 standard
DSI May 2010

In 2019 or 2020 should start deliveries for tranche 5 Rafale, to be ordered late 2015. Already, the various stakeholders of the program are working to trace the contours of the standard – F4 – of these weapons systems. The PEA for exploring paths for capacitive improvements have started last fall. The aim is to commission a review of all areas, to examine every major system or equipment and try to evaluate which technology advances are expected to be at the rendez vous and those which couldn’t be. Or those for whom it will be be possible to justify and obtain budgetary credits and those for whom it will not be possible! This explains the contents of this future F4 standard is still no freezed. However, the operationals are almost already expressing the considerable importance to dispose of a viewfinder-HMD. In A2A, it would allow one rafale to launch its MICA on a hostile aircraft without having to roll up in a close dogfight, which requires to be rid of its load of bombs. So to be able to continue its A2G original mission.

Essential viewfinder-HMD.

Beyond, the airmen consider that the viewfinder-HMD would provide an added value in the field of air-ground support, allowing to design to the weapon system, with the cross of the HMD, a ground target which would be in lateral or rear area and not necessarily, as it is the case today, in the front line sector of the aircraft. Or to design, via the Link-16, the ground target to a team member taking over. Thales evoked the possibility of an efficient equipment for the Rafale coming from the current Tiger HMD . And it seems quite clear that such equipment is much anticipated by potential export customers of the Rafale.

In the A2G field , operationals intend to have a laser designation pods even more efficient than the Damocles just arrived today in the qualification phase. They want the capacity to determine from a 6000 m altitude if the individual located on the ground is armed or not. As for weapons, they evoke missille with double capacity air-ground and air-air. And for the AASM bombs, they emphasize the development, for the 250 kg bomb, of laser guidance in addition to the current route by GPS and inertial hybridized IR sensor, but also on the achievement for the 250 kg body , of modular charges adapted to various types of employment and target, for example to focus on the effects of detonation and reduce collateral damage. The operationals do not want the AASM 125 kg proposed by Sagem. However an AASM 1000 kg with the ability to penetrate bunkers and reinforced buildings is favorably mentioned.

The air-ground sensors of the weapon system should also provide very high definition modes to improve the tracking of ground target (GMTI GMTT modes for the radar) with more complex interweaving of air-ground and air- air modes (monitoring of aerial threats in various areas while providing a ground tracking function). In the A2A field, one will have to start thinking about the studies for a MICA successor and to improve a little more the capabilities for identification of non-cooperative target (NCTR). In the matter of data links, including the Link-16, one will have to make greater use of satellite links. And the sea serpent of steering nozzle for the M88 is discussed again. It is also question of developing a stealth kit. Work will be launched to reduce the RCS by modifying the coating of the cans under the Rafale.

INCAS [Insert New Additional Capacity for SPECTRA] for SPECTRA 5T.

Already, the authorities and industrials are preparing evolutions for SPECTRA , to allow it to remain very effective when will start coming the tranche 5 Rafale. The PEA INCAS (Insert New Additional Capacity for SPECTRA), notified last September by the DGA to Thales Airborne Systems and MBDA, is indeed preparing SPECTRA 5T. The real challenge, according to Thales engineers, is to think, not only about the original equipment on board the new tranche 5 Rafale, but also about the retrofit in the framework of a prospective site to put this future new standard for the rest of the fleet including the first Rafale delivered.

An ambition much more delicate than it seems at first glance, because it need to evolve SPECTRA within acceptable limits – volume, mass, energy, cable, Interactions – by the first Rafale series, although their architecture has been conceived in the late 1980s. This requires, according to Thales officials, treasures of cunning and ingenuity. We must keep reaching an extreme interchangeability. Because the great longevity planned for the Rafale actually complicates the task. One need to design systems, allowing them the opportunity to integrate with minimal impact new technologies able to cope with post-2020 or even 2030 threats, still not easily discernible. As now formulated, the fundamental objective of SPECTRA 5T is therefore to be able to detect, even further, more discreet and even furtive threats.

How? by integrating, at the air entrances more efficient EM broadband receptors. Unlike current SPECTRA, with receivers still mixing analog and digital, those of SPECTRA 5T will be entirely digital. Which, incidentally, will facilitate transport and data management. More, added to future new processing algorithms, this increased “digitization” of equipement should provide a significant improvement in terms of sensitivity and angular measurement, with the added advantage of greater receptor compactness . This will allow, with equal volume, to much more! It is certainly delicate, given the sensitivity of the topic,to enter further into the details of improvements in matter of performance and functionality. But it must be very clear: according to Thales engineers, it is a revolution for technology and capability at the same level as it is for the RBE2 Radar evolving from a passive PESA antenna to the active AESA.

The GaN revolution.

This “revolution” also relates to jamming equipment for the future SPECTRA 5T. These transmitters, integrated at the top of the drift and the forward fuselage, near the apices and before the canard, will benefit from the integration of a new technology the gallium nitride (GaN) to replace the arsenide gallium currently used. The use of this broadband semiconductor, still unique within the European Union, very hard and with a very high thermal capacity, is expected to reduce significantly the electrical consumer and heating for a given power. The solid state antennas will provide a much greater lens precision with a very narrow emission beam. Note that to avoid any risk of external pressure on eventual Rafale export sales, the GaN components, like the gallium arsenide modules already used for the new RBE2 active antenna ,will be produced in France by a factory of the Franco-German company ( EADS / Thales joint-venture) UMS. The Thales engineers are also working to modify the current distribution between reception and jamming functions in SPECTRA. With, for example, the idea to integrate, for SPECTRA 5T, a multisignal RF receiver within the jammers. Viewing similarities between jammers and receivers components, such an approach would be technologically feasible and, potentially, would provide interesting synergies. Nevertheless, the collocation of such equipment would introduce real technical difficulties – EM compatibility -, though perfectly manageable. This pass, to avoid to perturb the receiver with collocated jamming emission, by appealing different waveforms for each equipment, with a wider range of frequence than currently employed on Spectra and with the implementation of active filters. In contrast, the locations and volumes vested to such equipment would remain unchanged from today. No way to modify anything in the aerodynamics of the aircraft or to impact the structure of the cell. Similarly, these changes would occur at energy isoconsumption [same energy consumption]. Asked whether the integration of tracted active EM decoys – in use with F/A-18E/F, B-1 and Typhoon – could be an interesting track for SPECTRA 5T, Thales engineers , as also the operationals, replied by expressing doubts about the broad effectiveness of the formula. It is difficult to re-roll the lure in flight and it must be dropped before landing. Hooked from a certain distance behind the carrier, it could allow a foreign fire control to recognize it as a decoy and, paradoxically, to facilitate the detection of the real target. Certainly, the tracted active EM jammer provides good angular jamming. But the SPECTRA ability to use jamming in cooperative mode – mode still insufficiently cleared by the operationals – is expected to balance the absence of tracted decoys on the Rafale.What is almost certain, however, is that SPECTRA 5T will implement dropped active EM lures . They should be able to simulate the RCS of a Rafale and to track, thanks to the deployment of a small wing, a trajectory similar to the simulation of an airplane. This had already been the subject of studies and demonstration trials during the 1990s. It seems that the expected performance of these “dropped” lures are higher than those tracted. Nevertheless, studies will be launched to assess the interest of the latter. The carriage of additional IR cartridges on some external payload points is also expected. Although the PEA INCAS has been notified in November 2009, the study of the SPECTRA 5T architecture system have already made good progress. Suitable demonstrators for various equipment should begin to work next year. J.-L ®

CFT, TVC, AESA, AtG weapons integration…This will not come for free. And till now the Typhoon program has not proven/shown any momentum to really go forward and ending up with something operational. we are talking of those features for years but nothing really happened apart initial industry funding and testing.

They need to reach some significant milestones or make important “go ahead” decisions with a clear roadmap very soon if they want to remain credible.

Another source from Michal Fiszer (Jun. 6, 2005) which is consistent with rafale pilots claims (posted on previous page of this thread post n° 376) and the fact that the rafale toped the FAB evaluation in the stealth category (see previous page as well post n°376).

Extract :

The requirement for stealth led to redesigning the fuselage, which produced the Rafale’s present characteristic shape. A single air intake was split into two side-mounted intakes that were carefully shaped to prevent an enemy’s radar from observing Rafale from the front hemisphere by getting returns off the moving parts of compressors. The vertical fin was made of electromagnetic (EM)- transparent composites. The RAMs initially used caused the black color of the Rafale C prototype, but special EM-transparent paints were later developed so the aircraft could receive any color scheme. All of those undertakings dramatically reduced the radar cross-section (RCS) of the Rafale, especially from the front. It is very difficult to assess the Rafale’s RCS due to the high level of classification, but sources have unofficially said that Rafale has a much lower RCS than the Typhoon, a fighter of roughly the same size.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-51379.html

The FAB evaluation makes rafale pilots claims more credible IMO :

Enemy Brothers

Air&Cosmos – June 2010

Since birth, both were scheduled to compete. The wrestling (commercial) which has now engaged the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale on the international scene has its roots in the early 80s, while Europe is seriously considering a joint development of a new multinational European fighter aircraft. France, United Kingdom and Germany are the main actors in a drama that will last many years. These last two countries, which have already collaborated in the Panavia consortium for the development of the Tornado are looking to replace a portion of their tactical fleet. For its part, France is trying, too, to have a fighter that can replace almost all of its combat aircraft. But from the beginning, the situation appears complex, whereas the English call for an air superiority aircraft class 11-12 tonnes, Paris argues for a device of only 9 tons. Moreover, the problems of industrial shares weigh down the prospects of cooperation including France, whose aeronautical companies ardently defend their plans to support the maintenance of their skills. In 1985, France announced it will develop alone its future combat aircraft. For their part, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain will start the Eurofighter program. While France wants to start building a really multirole aircraft, the nations in the Eurofighter consortium finance the development of a superiority aircraft, designed for air to air combat. To date yet, the ‘Typhoon has only very limited air-ground capabilities compared with the Rafale.

More thrust for the Typhoon

On paper, the Typhoon has some undeniable advantages: more powerful than M88, its two reactors give it a better weight/thrust than the Rafale. According to the Eurofighter pilots, this additional power would be particularly appreciable during simulated combat below 20,000 ft, where the density of air allows the engines to be fully expressed. In the battle beyond visual range (BVR), the Typhoon also has an greater “extension” than the Rafale. This is because of the the physical characteristics of the radar, which antenna “sees” futher than the RBE2-PESA, but also because of the dynamic performance of the American missile AIM-120 AMRAAM . Designed exclusively for medium-range interception, it certainly does not have the versatility of the Mica, but it is superior in terms of range. Facing a Rafale, these theoretical advantages, however, must be nuanced.
In BVR combat, although the lengthening of the radar and missiles of the Typhoon are superior, the french Rafale fighter’s radar signature is, according to many pilots, much less important than the Eurofighter’s one. It is therefore an asset. Even better: the sensors fusion which enjoys the Rafale is also a crucial advantage in BVR combat, because it offers the pilots a much better understanding of the tactical situation during combat, and this, 360 degrees around the aircraft.
Once the “merge” is reached (when BVR combat turns into short-range), the Rafale has still strong chances of victory against the Typhoon. In the opinion of French pilots who have confronted the European aircraft, it’s above all the quality of the electric flight controls [FBW] of the French fighter who makes the difference. In dogfight, Rafale can quickly point its nose to the threat, while less degrading its energy than the Eurofighter does. And this partly because the maximum angle of attack of the Rafale is “clamped” around 300, which allows it to evolve in a controlled manner even at low speed.
This difference in terms of maneuverability is also illustrated by the position of the canard on the two planes: placed well in front of the fuselage on the Typhoon, they play the role of an additional control surface used to “steer” more quickly the nose of the plane to take the incidence.
Conversely, the Rafale ducks are located very near the delta wing and are used primarily to pick up the airflow to slow up the loss of lift on the wing, thus giving the pilot a full control of the aircraft at low speeds.

A first indisputable skirmish

The Armée de l’ Air has been able to experience this superiority in dogfight in September 2009, during an exercise organized by the French and British headquarters, during a deployment on the Solenzara airbase in Corsica .
Few days , the EC-1/7 stands next with the Royal Air Force transformation squadron on typhoons. The English have thought of everything, and introduce to the French pilots the simulated engagement patterns they wish to practice facing the Rafale. The French pilots push back a smile: the conditions of the exercice are, on paper, custom-made for the Typhoons , they plan within visual range fights , 1 vs 1, under 20,000 ft and at 350 knots. Whatever. The ‘Provence’ squadron takes up the gauntlet … The 2 planes take off, then meet up at 18 000 ft to start the exercise. The aircraft are flying on the same trajectory with about 2 km of lateral separation. “Turn Away” with this announcement, the pilots turn 45 ° outward, to move away from each other. A few seconds later, the “turn in” and the planes turn toward each other to meet face-to-face in the sky. Once both aircraft is within visual range , its the ultimate ad: “Fight’s on!”. The first skirmish is indisputable. It need less than 40 seconds and only 3 crossing for the Rafale pilot to have its gun in firing position. However, the pilots flying the two planes are far from beginners. While the English is considered a Typhoon specialist in air-to-air, the “Provence” pilot has also a solid experience in within visual range combat.

Nine wins, one defeat

This initial result is not a fluke: the two next passes end also to the advantage of the Rafale. In total, 4 different engagements will take place in Corsica, for a total of 9 wins against 1 defeat for the french fighter. A nice demonstration of force that inspires the pilots the following moral: without mastery, power is nothing … It is however an area where the Typhoon is victorious: the one of exports. While the Rafale is still looking for a first client, the Typhoon has already been sold to Saudi Arabia and Austria, and remains opposed to the Rafale in Switzerland and India.

post n° 1513 :
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?137433-Rafale-News/page101

I don’t remember this quote exactly unfortunately (memory issue). I remember hearing from a rafale pilot that spectra is being able to locate radar emissions at far greater range than a radar would pick up the rafale in a rafale vs typhoon discussion though. I believe it was in 2009.

I will try to look for more at the next paris airshow. I will be there most of the week, especially during professional days when it is easier to access pilots or executives. This time I’ill try to get in contact with Typhoon pilots. Previously it was with rafale and mirage pilots as well as USAF (F15E and F16). Special mention to USAF pilots who were very approachable and friendly. We talked for more than an hour and not only about aviation.

redreidy,

There is at least three or four sources that I know.

The most recent ones come from A&C “ennemi brothers” and is posted (by myself) on this very thread a few pages ago. Rafale pilots who confronted the Typhoon said that Rafale is significantly lower to the typhoon and that helps (among other things to compensate for typhoon bigger radar) according to them.

There was a very thorough paper from a journalist who made a report on the typhoon as well. He also mentioned the rafale having a lower RCS and he explained the origin of it. I believe most old posters here know what peper I am refering too. I hope some will give you a direct link, I just don’t have time to do google research right now.

There were first hand informations from Pepe Rezende (journalist and member of the Brazilian defence committee and who revealed nice things on the Indian evaluations) who asserted that the rafale was the stealthiest compared to the SH and the gripen NG and that in some condition its RCS was just 1% of the SH. This created quite a debate at that time. Also another brazilian article revealed that the rafale was the best in this regard.

In bill Sweetman interview, Pierre Yves Chatiel-senior EW engineer- asserted that the rafale had some specific jamming tactics that makes it invisible to radar.

Then Pepe Rz

I changed because too many relatives new I was arthuro so I preferred the compfort of a more anonymous name. As simple as that;)