Release of the first standard AESA
Le Mammouth, August 11

After nine years of research and prototypes, Thales proceed this month to the industrial rate for its AESA radar, the first production model is due out from factory in August.

Thales launched in 2001 into this technology, so far only mastered by the American radar operators, which should be also incontrovertible for future UAVs.

One billion euros have been invested with public and private funds. The result should give a more operational Rafale, but also, of course, a key commercial asset.(1)

Switzerland seems to have been one of the first air forces to evaluate a Rafale equipped with it , as probably Brazil and the UAE. [he forgot India]
The first AESA Rafale flew in 2006. Three pre-production radars were made and mounted on a Air force Rafale, a Navy Rafale and an aircraft used for trials by Dassault Aviation.

Production rates in this high-technology is still relatively low, as Thales expects to produce one AESA radar by month in its cleanrooms of Pessac (Gironde), on the basis of one customer -French- present anyway.
60 AESA radar has been ordered for the fourth tranche of the Rafale.
All airborne radar fitted on Dassault fighters awere built in Pessac, since the site opened in 1975.

(1] so much determinant that Thales abandonned the idea to provide it to the Swedish Saab which planned to integrate it on its Gripen[…]

http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/2010/08/sortie-du-premier-aesa-de-serie.html

Have you ever seen the official Dassault PDF release Teer ? If not that might interest you :

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/defense/rafale/publications.html

Grandclaudon admitted as much that the 7-1 scoreline was not the only engagement, nor was it representative of an overall trend, that other engagements had the reverse.

Where did he say that ? I have the aviation week interview with me at the moment and that’s not written. In fact the other engagement were those when the rafale was on the blue side (and won) because the journalist assumed that the 7-1 claim occurred only when rafales were on the blue side and that the typhoon was only emulating Mig29/SU27.

You said rafale scored several victories in ATA over typhoon (4:0 an 3:1). The RAF say that’s rubibish : Typhoon was fighting as red air for other nations but obviously everyone else had to .So they are saying that it was not Typhoon vs rafale but rafale vs Typhoon simulating flanker or fulcrum
That’s exactly the point grandclaudon is answering :

British pilots, relayed by the media and the Anglo-Saxon specialized blogosphere, including claims that the Typhoon did not fly as such during the fighting, but simulated “red” attackers, MiG-29 and Su-27 in that case. So, the 1/7 Provence squadron leader made a point to recall that 2 of his Rafale were also”red chest” (MiG-29 index “Charlie”) when they shot down 4 “blue” Typhoon – flying as Typhoon – while being reduced to use virtual russians AA-10C missiles to be guided by the Rafale until the impact on their target, which forbade to shoot multiple targets at once .

.

Page 23-24 et al speak of sensor fusion. HUD has basic info plus ECM aided escape cues, some cues will show up on HMCS. Plus there is an IRST attack format, and a radar format. Plus one MFD should have engine, aircraft indicators etc. Can anyone compare this versus the Rafale layout to show up the points of difference? Is it that the Rafale has lesser “Formats” but fused to begin with with all 3 fused on one screen (radar/eo/esm) to make it simpler for the pilot and the other 2 MFD/HUD/HMS act as adjunct which the pilot refers to but relies only on the main screen?

Good find Teer,
The answer from the french side is clear about it, would be interesting to have more precision from the other side :

GrandClaudon (squadron commander) :

However, he heavily emphasized the performance of the french system in the field of arms data fusion, from his point of view the main reason of the superiority obtained. Instead of each sensor to display its studs (aircraft detected) on a specific screen, forcing the Typhoon pilot to operate an intellectual gymnastics , annoying in combat stress, to check if the plot of its corresponding screen of electronic warfare was or was not the one visible on the radar screen or IRST, the Rafale’s systems present to the pilot a single plot on a screen, the system automatically compares the plots provided by the various sensors on board and decides if it is or not the same plane.

Captain Romain

In BVR air combat (beyond visual range, ie at ranges of several dozens of kilometers), the Rafale system provides synthetic information coming from multiple sensors. This information is therefore more accurate. We can do without 1 or 2 sensors during a whole combat while remaining extremely dangerous for the enemy. This gives us access to new tactics of particular interest.

Oh no not the ATLC 7-1 BS again!

It has since been shown to be massively overhyped spinning from the French and those figures have been credibly denied.

Still don’t see a Rafale export contract…

It was never denied on the contrary…latest answers from squadron commander Grandclaudon in DSI and Captain Romain are still unanswered (see above). Look at the chronology and the content. These two latest articles are answering JL accusations in the Aviation week interview.

Obviously this statement has immediately raised an outcry among British pilots, relayed by the media and the Anglo-Saxon specialized blogosphere, including claims that the Typhoon did not fly as such during the fighting, but simulated “red” attackers, MiG-29 and Su-27 in that case. So, the 1/7 Provence squadron leader made a point to recall that 2 of his Rafale were also”red chest” (MiG-29 index “Charlie”) when they shot down 4 “blue” Typhoon – flying as Typhoon – while being reduced to use virtual russians AA-10C missiles to be guided by the Rafale until the impact on their target, which forbade to shoot multiple targets at once . For Fabrice Grandclaudon, the limitations of the “red” plastron role don’t prevent a weapons system to show its real capabilities, because the pilots are taking advantage of the real human-machine interfaces and sensors on board, one of the Rafale has benefited from a refresh of its tactical situation by his teammate via Link-16. In other words, even if some of them simluated Su-27, the British pilots virtually shoot down were using the sensors and the avionics of their Typhoon and not those of a Su-27! And the french pilot to recognize, with great sportsmanship, that the Typhoon pilots who had been opposed to the Rafale the week preceding the ATLC were young and relatively inexperienced, as the French already benefits from lessons learned from 3 operational detachments in Afghanistan (one year of presence in all) and 4 of its pilots had participated in Red Flag 2008.

Teer,

To be precise the restriction were on rafale side but it still won. That is why this exercise was taken seriously. Moreover the pilots made comments about what they thought that make a difference. ie : sensor fusion, MMI, RCS, maneuverability.

captain Romain Interview :

Let’s talk now about the results of this exercise. Your squadron commander speaks of ” to have put sheets” to the British participants equipped with Eurofighter with a ratio of 7 victories for 1 defeat, with degraded armament on the side of the Rafale. What is called degraded armament and which were the rules of engagement?

During an ATLC engagement, 2 Rafale engaged, using their whole system but simulating a weapon that requires taking more risk than normal, 4 Eurofighter. The 2 Rafale killed the 4 Typhoon which used all their normal capacities, without loss.
The rules of engagement were “beyond visual range”.
(For the experts, the Rafale had then simulated the use of a semi-active missile while the missile normally used by the Rafale is an active missile, which allows to take cover more quickly after a shot.)

What are the differences between the two weapon systems, whether in terms of sensors and situation awareness for the pilot?

All have always dreamed of hundreds of Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000 pilots became reality in the Rafale. It is the result of a long common adventure between Dassault and the French Air Force. The Rafale is the culmination of decades of experience in military aviation.

Finally, the Rafale fighter is a very complete aircraft:

The rafale is extremely maneuvering and thus awesome in dogfight. For example, confronted with a Eurofighter, engaged in a within visual range combat with a neck to neck start, we know we need a few dozens of seconds to validate a ‘gun kill’.

In BVR air combat (beyond visual range, ie at ranges of several dozens of kilometers), the Rafale system provides synthetic information coming from multiple sensors. This information is therefore more accurate. We can do without 1 or 2 sensors during a whole combat while remaining extremely dangerous for the enemy. This gives us access to new tactics of particular interest.

And with an greater extension than the previous generation aircraft, the Rafale carries twice more air-ground weapons.

The AASM, the new auto-powered GPS French bomb, gives a Rafale the ability to replace several Mirage while being more efficient and taking less risk.
The Eurofighter is a plane built for aerial combat and it fares worse than the Rafale, which is a versatile aircraft (air combat, bombing, reconnaissance).

Lt Colonel and squadron leader :

The Typhoon were inferiors.

Concurrently, November 16, the Rafale gave, according to the french pilot, a memorable beating to the RAF Typhoon – the most recent version – which were also deployed in the UAE for the ATLC. To put it bluntly, Lieutenant-Colonel Grandclaudon said the two air battles – battles with IR-guided missile and cannon – which opposed Rafale and Typhoon gave a score of 7 wins for the first and 0 for the second, the only Rafale considered as having been destroyed flew below the allowed flight floor ! Obviously this statement has immediately raised an outcry among British pilots, relayed by the media and the Anglo-Saxon specialized blogosphere, including claims that the Typhoon did not fly as such during the fighting, but simulated “red” attackers, MiG-29 and Su-27 in that case. So, the 1/7 Provence squadron leader made a point to recall that 2 of his Rafale were also”red chest” (MiG-29 index “Charlie”) when they shot down 4 “blue” Typhoon – flying as Typhoon – while being reduced to use virtual russians AA-10C missiles to be guided by the Rafale until the impact on their target, which forbade to shoot multiple targets at once . For Fabrice Grandclaudon, the limitations of the “red” plastron role don’t prevent a weapons system to show its real capabilities, because the pilots are taking advantage of the real human-machine interfaces and sensors on board, one of the Rafale has benefited from a refresh of its tactical situation by his teammate via Link-16. In other words, even if some of them simluated Su-27, the British pilots virtually shoot down were using the sensors and the avionics of their Typhoon and not those of a Su-27! And the french pilot to recognize, with great sportsmanship, that the Typhoon pilots who had been opposed to the Rafale the week preceding the ATLC were young and relatively inexperienced, as the French already benefits from lessons learned from 3 operational detachments in Afghanistan (one year of presence in all) and 4 of its pilots had participated in Red Flag 2008.

Some advantages that make the difference.

However, he heavily emphasized the performance of the french system in the field of arms data fusion, from his point of view the main reason of the superiority obtained. Instead of each sensor to display its studs (aircraft detected) on a specific screen, forcing the Typhoon pilot to operate an intellectual gymnastics , annoying in combat stress, to check if the plot of its corresponding screen of electronic warfare was or was not the one visible on the radar screen or IRST, the Rafale’s systems present to the pilot a single plot on a screen, the system automatically compares the plots provided by the various sensors on board and decides if it is or not the same plane. The french pilots have also appreciated the agility of the antenna of the electronic RBE2 radar – The Typhoon has for now only a mechanical antenna – allowing to refresh the situation in the whole volume monitored. But they insist, for close combat, on the perfect controllability of their Rafale, thanks to the excellence of FBW, to the extreme limits of the flight envelope.. To point the nose toward the target and to design it to the weapons system in the absence of a viewfinder-HMD while operating at very low speed. What are not necessarily capable of the main opponents of the Rafale …
Well obviously, one should not rejoice in excess. The extremely positive results of these meetings have been obtained in special circumstances. The pilots had been set specific roles by the commander of the COMAO device and were therefore not free to exploit in depth all the potentials of their weapons system. The results have been different perhaps in other circumstances (nevertheless, some time ago, another meeting between Typhoon and Rafale, in Corsica, was also turned into “massacre” at the expense of the first 8 losses to 0 ). But, simply put, the EC 1 / 7 pilots are particularly satisfied with their stay in UAE. Their demonstration has , aptly, made a strong buzz [noise] among the aviators of the region and troubled the Anglo-Saxons until now convinced of the utter superiority of their planes. A disturbance also compounded by the loss – virtual of course – of an F-22 gun shot by an UAE Mirage 2000-9 flown, this time, by a French experimented pilot. Really, when everything goes wrong … P

Rafale vs Typhoon in corsica dogfight :

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 30, 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. [/color][/b]

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.

As for AtG just compare the amount of external fuel carried by both platform in similar config…You will be surprised.

Reality is that Rafale’s radar is smaller then any of the competitors, even those that comes at less then half the lifetime cost. When it comes to radars, -size matters.
You can compensate somewhat by increasing power output, but that will light up the sky like a christmas tree, hardly someting to recommend for a covert deep strike.
I’m not suggesting current radar is of primary concern for anyone planning to operate a fighter for 30 years, but it is not in your interest to compare radars.

It is in the interest of potential future customers to compare radars and other items. But you are ignoring their conclusions because you are not ready to accept them psychologically. So you prefer to live in denial. But be it Norway, Brazil or India all conclude that Gripen NG radar is underperforming. On the other hand the only things you can hear about the RBE2 AESA is positive. Rafale radar size is nor the biggest but nor the smallest. You have yet to prove its smaller than gripen’s failed radar.
Finally you are ignoring the GaN technology that will be implemented on the rafale. So when you talk about the next 30 years I would prefer the rafale to the gripen NG 😉