Each design has its pros and cons.

The simple fact that Thales chose the E-scan solution over M-scan when they have designed the very capable RDY-2 is more than a clue.

People who took this decision know what they are doing and are aware of limitation of both technology. If they chose this path it means that they had good reasons.

I think we have to accept strenght and shortcomings of bot technology.

Limited interalving with Captor remains to be seen and I doubt it could match that of an E-scan radar. It is not a capability which is usually bring forward in Typhoon communication unlike the rafale. They adverstise SC, high trust to weight ratio but I’ve never heard any exercise report telling how this capability is used. I don’t think its part of the typhoon doctrine and philosophy. (No nuclear role)

-range loss is an issue with PESA but you have to consider AWACS support and modern RWR in the equation. Greek pilots admitted that F16 emissions could be picked by spectra “several hundreds of miles away”. A captor radar is certainly not very discrete when scanning the sky at full power.
And PESA is the easiest transition towards AESA.

So you can finf arguments for both side and reality is not dark and white but grey here.

I think it is a bit of both. To be fair there have never been an official definition about it from dassault so you have to guess what it really means.

As I understood from many readings and discussions from people from dassault (engineer, executived, pilots) it is the ability to perform all missions* that had to be performed by several type of fighters (in the case of the AdA and with the navy-air force airframe commonality) and do them simultaneously with the front cockpit working on AtA and the back seat doing other tasks (AtG, recce, antiship, sead etc…) for instance or the reverse atg in the front and AtA in the rear cockpit.

In the real world it means that the rafale or other fighter with similar capabilty (SH block2, F16 block60, F15 AESA) is/are better able to cope with complex environments.

In the case of the rafale it is essential in its nuclear detterence role. The E-scan choice is intimmately linked with this strategic mission and the will to replace all AdA fighters with only one type of aircraft.

*all must be understood by the needs of the AdA that have to be fulfilled. Further capabilities can be integrated at a latter stage if an export customer requires it.

I’ve heard that F22s almost don’t use this capability as they prefer to stay airborne for longer period as they can remain undetected. They then engage AB to quickly accelerate to supersonic speeds for intercepts. But basically they don’t SC for very long periods.

I beleive that SC can be truely useful in an environment where the ennemy is clearly known but in complex environment I doubt that a fighter jet will shoot at a target at full range without positive ID.

Just to say that SC might sounds that the ultimate thing to have but that it could in fact rarely be used in a real conflict scenario.

Anyway the F22 doesn’t need that to dominate any potential threats in the near future.

Although the F22 can do more than AtA I would not call it a true multirole fighter. Lack of internal space in weapons bay and lack of optic sensor reduce your operational flexibility.

The F35 will be a far more flexible and useful asset in my opinion.

That being said it is not an insult against the F22 or calling into question some of its unique characteristics. It is just here to give here a balanced point of view.

Loke,

True I forgot that one…I don’t know if all the softawares and MMI can effectively handle this kind of operations with the new F15 but yes with an AESA radar this is of course inherently possible.

decoupled cockpit work/simultaneous operations are the way to go and it will soon be quite common next decade. The rafale was a pionner regarding this capability. (since 2006 with the F2)

to Wrightwing:

I am following the possible kuweti deal quite closely and it is impossible to say that the rafale was not the favourite choice or the opposite. I think you base your opinion on islamist MPs but this info has been formely denied by the ministry of defense and he reported that no kuweti officer have said anything negative about the rafale. Honestly given the info available today you can’t really draw any conclusions.

To me this deal is more a state to state deal.

Export is another matter where politics and offset play an important role. If it were only technical evaluation the rafale would have pick up a few exports already and some other competitor would not have been sold.

All future upgrade or fighters plan to have this capability in the future : gripen NG, F35, Typhoon AESA etc…That quite an indication of the usefull caracter of this feature.

For instance in a long range heavily loaded deep strike you are unlikely to have an AtA escort. You will bet on the surprise effect and precise ops planning. If something unexpected occur you can still face it without changing you flight path. (staying low altitude to keep a tactical advatage).

Decoupled operation in a more current basis allow the rafale or SH block2 to cope with more complex missions and thus a better capability to act in a dense environment. This is the same idea of how the israeli air force operate (two seaters) but bolstered by the capability of E-scan radars.

As far as I know AdA pilots like this feature very much and use it very often during exercises.

This competition is really exiting…Its more about politics/lobbying than specs to say the least but still its as good as a good moovie ! What a suspens !

I am waiting for SAAB counter counter attack now that the choice is the rafale.

I must say that SAAB are really good in the lobbying exercise…They never give up and come with pretty convincing arguments. I think sometimes they speak too much and with too obvious press connections but still pretty efficient.

I respect them for that.

I bet dassault’s strategy is more behind the curtain and off the press. I can’t help thinking that dassault is sometimes too traditional/discrete in its approach and should learn from SAAB.

He never said it had AC…He said that was possible considering the fact that thales/mbda was working on it for other applications. That’s a difference.

Perhaps it had a simpler version of AC and now its the next phase, perhaps it hadn’t AC ….What can you realistically do except speculating ?? There is now way to know it for sure. Believe me I tried to talk about this subject wit many people from Dassault including one top executive (former international support manager) or Thales with engineers working on the groundmaster 400 and they are quite shy about it to say the least. They clearly dodge any questions regarding to this.