Lol and the somewhat lower RCS is going to help the Rafale in fighting a truely stealthy opponent in which way? And how much better are the ECM and ECCM capabilities in reality? I’d take a somewhat lesser low speed manoeuvrability with an HMD instead and a dedicated IRST/FLIR senor rather than a missile IR seeker. :p

Stealth is only having a lower RCS to reduce detection range as much as possible. We don’t know how much better ESM are, but according to some…
The Rafale’s FSO as a fully dedicated IRST. The advantage is that MICA IR doesn’t have to wait until you get into the HMD’s range to toast you. It can do so far further away that you’ll never get a chance to use your shiny expansive HMD.

What IR sensor are you talking of? The dedicated IRST has disappeared away at this time, though I suppose that the MAWS can be used if they program it differently (not done this far).

The IRST is still fully available and operational. And now with the DDM-NG, Rafale has a better SA than ever before.

The TV camera is near infrared, but not optimized for low light conditions. The electro-optic package really needs to address these issues – low light visualization and long range IR tracking.

Flying high where the AtA engagement is likely to be, there won’t be any issue with the weather.

I said against airborne targets, not swing role. It requires the CAESAR and not Captor-M. It is more about raw radar detection power, and at this point – the IRST as well. The latter will change over time with the OSF-NG.

I misunderstood your first statement. So first CAESAR/CAPTOR-E or whatever isn’t operational and won’t be until 2015 at the earliest and in limited numbers. Right now the RBE is able to detect and track twice the numbers of aircraft than Captor, and is better at engaging small RCS targets due to bean agility and shaping. While the IRST is no longer in production, the versatility of Rafale permits to plug and play those that exist to any Rafales like a pod.

True about the CAESAR, though since some of the context included the MRCA, before it lost the race there was some hope of funding. Right now, it is more tenuous but I suspect that the Saudis will insist on it and even pay for it.

Even in the context of the MMRCA, the Captor-E would have been very new and untested even if they had managed to finish it by 2015 which is unlikely.

The RBE2AA was reported to operate on a very small range of frequencies by Jane’s and also there was no report from the French on any jamming component, even though the CAESAR was advertised with such ability [to come in…]. Since there was mention of improvements in ground mapping and 2-color HUD, not mentioning an EW component to the radar would have been pretty much a big miss.

People are often mistaking the PESA and AESA version of the RBE2. They’re also mistaking the early PESA with the later one with software upgrades on the F3.

You would need to have more powerful engines here. The electrical system is hardly beefy with the standard engines. The Typhoon may also need beefed up generators but has more engine power going for it.

More powerful engines can only help. But not because those currently used are insufficient in any ways.

There were reports from Janes/publications about how conservative the system is, and further, the UAE wanted an upgraded version. The radar does not have a GMTI – an easy enough software fix to implement, it has lower azimuth by 60 degrees compared to the CAESAR or 40 degrees compared to Russian AESAs, it lacks sufficient T/R modules compared to the CAESAR, and lacks a swishplate which limits its range around the edges or tracking surface areas at some angles.

Jane isn’t Thales, and the UAE wanted many things including the AESA rather than the PESA. Since the AESA is now available and that Thales/Dassault had time to matured it, I’m sure it’ll do just fine as evidenced by the UAE redrawal of their “special” requirements.

Like I said, its an advanced radar – but not by AESA standards anything spectacular.

Still… we know nothing about it…

Notably, the Indian AF chief rated the American radars as being the best in the MRCA contest, so that also goes to prove that the RBE2AA is at a lower league, as seen by the UAE air force negotiators. The APG-80 is hardly a top notch set – it is one of the older American AESAs that got upgraded a bit – and it was the radar benchmark used by UAE negotiators. It also proves the IAF chief right.

That doesn’t prove anything but that the technology was still quite young at the time.

This is one of the early generation French AESAs (it came in several versions) and the French were talking about cheek mounted arrays and new T/R modules to develop its technology. I think that given its range and design limits – even the T/R modules are not canted or developed to move on swish plates, you can’t really say that this is a lot better than a run-of-the-mill AESA.

Nonsense

There may be some advantage to the CAESAR but it may not have enough advantage to get any first strike. You would have to assume that jets are up front just in the right position to get a good advantage, and that assumption is too much of a chance. And as you said, an AWACS radar plane can also provide an early picture, so the CAESAR may not provide real advantages at all.

Nonsense as well and you’re contradicting yourself.

Assuming we don’t have AWACS or GCI around, then the CAESAR may have more of an advantage against stealthy targets than an F-16 sized opponent due to lack of enough weapon range.

I’ve already told you both aircraft have the same weapon range. Now the question is can the allegedly greater range of Captor-E provide a systemic advantage to the Typhoon versus the RBE2 AESA ? Nope.

When you have a CAESAR design with far more modules, mechanical sweep for better range around the edges, and much more range – and the same degree of T/R tech – I think you can see why the radar would be a lot more effective. It is claimed to be able to detect the F-35 at the high 50s – which means closer to 60 KM. Try that on an RBE2AA.

mechanical sweep mean that while it gets better around the edges it also lose some SA in other directions. And at 50 to 60 KM it’ll be down to training and tactics.
Also Rafale’s engine have a lower IR signature than Typhoon or the F-35.

The CAESAR would detect a stealth target at much lower than long ranges, and at that range the IRST can also be used.

If we’re down to radar + IRST combo then Rafale has a edge with lower IR signature, lower RCS according to some, IRST + Mica IR…

Against sensors there are countermeasures that can be applied. For instance, the Americans will barely emit in their 5th generation jets. In that case the SPECTRA can do little, as seen in the F-22 v. Rafale match ups.

Rafale vs F-22 match ups? What did that prove about SPECTRA? And if the stealth aircraft isn’t emitting then you’re down to passive sensors where the FSO + MICA IR will have an edge over PIRATE alone.

So you would want other forms of validation like IRST and high-powered radar (for low radar cross sections where radiating power is a significant consideration).

Lol by the time you get to “validate”, the Rafale will have make you a fireball with the help of the FSO (which has a TV camera for long range ID) + MICA IR that can find you at 80+ km. If you use your “high powered” radar then SPECTRA will get you…

French components were used in the MKI and some of them ought to remain. The IRST is not French here – the Russians are doing their own work, and for the MAWS it is taken from Cassidian. But why are you getting so defensive about French tech? A lot of countries can make good avionics – and France is sure on that list…

I never said the IRST is French, I said French is exporting a lot of IR technology to Russia and India, along with the US and other countries. I’m not saying they are all french by default.

The real advantage of the MKI is like in the F-15, it can generate a high amount of electrical power (especially with the Super 30 engine upgrade) and has a large radome (unlike the Rafale). So a huge Zhuk AESA – though technologically more backward than the French AESA designs – can actually be used for very long range detection and also for spotting small RCS targets. The USAF was considering the F-15 for stealth detection, even though they have the F-22.

You’re trying to analyse the aircraft sensors by sensors when you should consider the system as a whole.
If flying against a superior ranged radar, then SPECTRA will detect that radar way before the emitting plane detect the Rafale. If flying against a “stealth” or “passive” target, then SPECTRA + FSO (IIR, TV) + MICA will detect and shoot first. If Rafale isn’t the first to shoot then SPECTRA will protect it long enough to counter attack.

The Typhoon’s real “edge” lays with fifth generation jets like the J-20 or F-35.

Care to explain? Can the Typhoon engage 6 ground targets simultaneously while firing 3 AtA missiles half a minute later?

At that time, you would like the extra radiated power from the CAESAR, its much superior azimuth (200 degrees v. 140 degrees for the RBE2AA), its substantially greater range at angles, and also its additional modes like radar-based jamming.

First you’ll have to get CAESAR operational. Then what makes you think the RBE2AA can’t do jamming?

The Rafale’s problem has always been a lack of electrical power. The PESA had issues with sensitivity and range to the point that even the Mirage 2000-5 radar had some advantages in detection.

That has already been solved with F3 standard upgrade, and the AESA will bring even more performances. Given that Rafale has far more avionics installed on it that do Typhoon so far, and that Typhoon will need to upgrade its generators in order to implement CEASAR, I would say that Rafale is doing quite well for itself.

The AESA alleviates the range issue and is also more robust but it’s hardly a top tier system.

Says who?

It’s not even developed with jamming functionality in mind – perhaps due to stealth materials on the radome but more likely due to power issues. As a radar it is advanced, but as an AESA radar its functionality is pretty straightforward and somewhat limited – therefore not too advanced here. The CAESAR is head and shoulders above.

Again please prove such a statement, and until CAESAR is operational and can prove all its “advertised” capabilities I would advise you more prudence since their advertisement have been proved to be wrong on a number of occasions.

Unfortunately for the EF consortium, they don’t have much of a weapon for the CAESAR, so a lot of the range is just wasted into getting file tracks that you can’t really use to obliterate your target.

They will both use the same BVR weapon and they’ll both be able to use it to its maximum range, making the CAESAR just more expansive.

Should CEASAR be able to detect targets at further ranges, then assuming proper L16 integrating and the capability to use it properly it could provide an advantage in directing other “passive” aircraft toward their targets.

The Typhoon would also make more noise without having an early shot advantage guarantee – so it winds up without enough advantage in an overall sense.

If you’ve enough money to buy Rafale or Typhoon, then you should have enough money to buy AWACS. Any range advantage would thus be extremely minimal. However as I said above, if the CAESAR longer range is proved, then it will be useful in a formation with some Typhoon detecting and other further ahead firing.

The one area that is an exception is with very low RCS targets. In that case the increased detection range and the PIRATE infrared system can work together for striking stealth targets. The Rafale is sorely lacking here until Sagem gets its IRST on the jet…

Longer range of the radar doesn’t mean better tracking of stealth targets, and given the limited range of IRST vs radar how can PIRATE and CASEAR work better than any other radar+IRST combo?

In addition Rafale do have an IRST. But why buy it in significant number when you’re planning on changing it soon, and its quite expansive? Why bother when you can easily swap the systems you have between your fleet? Well it’s a shame other aircraft can’t but that their problems…

The Rafale has the SPECTRA suite (later the INCAS) for passive detection and tracking, but that’s a much lower chance shot, especially if the PLAAF took good steps to minimize radiation via networking. Advanced air forces like the USAF surely will do that when the F-35 rolls in, so passive targeting should be aided by other sensors like a long-range IRST.

Can you rephrase that please? I’m not sure I understood that properly.
SPECTRA protects the Rafale against hostile emissions and threat in the EM, laser and IIR bands. It also provide an accurate location of these threat allowing Rafale to engage them by cuing other sensors if it’s necessary.

The FSO and the RBE are sensors in their own rights that work with SPECTRA.

In the end, the IAF does have other platforms that make up. One of them is the Su-30MKI Super 30 platform – which should be ready within the next 2-3 years. It’s AESA radar and new generation IRST and uprated engines (for more power, including electrical generation) would be able to detect stealthy radar cross sections at medium ranges.

Are you aware that the Su-30 MKI has a lot of Israeli and French component in it? Are you aware that France is providing many of the IR imaging solutions of many countries? Are you aware than any IRST upgrade of the IAF is likely to come from French laboratories?

Another option is the PAK-FA, and the third is the FGFA due between 2015 to 2019 – these also offering better stealthing, agility and supercruise capability than the Typhoon.

Again, the version India is going to field is likely to contain significant French and Israeli avionics.
Rafale could hold its own in dogfight against the F-22 during exercises in the UAE, and gave more than a beating to the Typhoon on numerous occasions.

While we’ll never truly know the true performances of these jets in BVR, we can for now say that ESA radars (especially AESA) have clear advantages over mechanical radars, that medium range IR MICA has clear advantages over short range IR missiles, that good SA beats mediocre SA, that true swing-role, multi-targets are clear advantages in real war against the enemy etc.

ITAR free, carrier capable, one dependable partner…

Supercruise isn’t just for speed but also to reduce the IR signature as such improving stealth.
Been able to drop 8 SDB on 8 different targets is quite something (which Typhoon can’t do and won’t do for a while), and it make the F-22 as multi-role as it needs to be when considering the flexibility that the AESA and other sensors provide.

Else please describe what is a “true multi-role” aircraft?

I’m disagreeing on the last point !
While it is preferable if the a/c can do it all from an operative & financial PoV,
the fact is the defining 5th gen a/c, -the F-22, has a poor multi-role capability.
And why did you forget the primary F-22 kpp, supercruise ?
Also forgotten is the original demand on next gen. to cost less to operate than previous (4th gen.) fighters,
which F-22 failed miserably in doing.

So switch that multi mumble back to the original demand: Supercruise, and try getting operational cost right, just for once.

Supercruise is part (at least partially) of the stealth requirement…
The F-22 can drop SDBs (about 8 of them it seems) with independent targeting,
It’s supposed to cost less on logistic etc, not on acquisition cost (we knew from the start it wasn’t going to happen).

Am I right in thinking their are some structural differences between Tranche 1 and Tranche 2? If so, if the RAF keep their Tranche 1 Typhoons, would they be re-manufactured when they undergo a mid-life upgrade so that structurally they are identical to Tranche 2? Hopefully this is not a dumb question!

According to the RAF

A total of 53 Tranche 1 aircraft were delivered, with Tranche 2 contract provisioning for 91 aircraft. 24 of these were diverted to fulfill the RSAF export campaign, leaving 67 Tranche 2 aircraft due for delivery to the RAF. The Tranche 3 contract has been signed and will deliver 40 aircraft. With the Tranche 1 aircraft fleet due to retire over the period 2015-18, this will leave 107 Typhoon aircraft in RAF service until 2030.

T2s seems to be quite a bit different than T1s, yet both are been upgraded with P1E, but still to at least two different standards (which prompt the question what had to be solved between T1 and T2).
The Saudi deal is quite interesting as well, with a recent article describing the remaining aircraft as “future proofed” in order to add AESA, CFTs etc. later. That pose the question about the upgradability of the T2s actually been delivered so far (which prompt the question will the RAF T2s been easily upgradable to T3A or B? or will they be another standard as well?).

The Hawk won on merit. The Alpha Jet simply isn’t in the same league as Hawk.

Lol a similar sentence come in mind when looking at the MMRCA…

I just read about the 2 Billion cost to equip the cariers for conventional operations.
I can’t believe it would cost so much.
How far along is the QE and PoW construction?

The UK/BAE entered the JSF program under the assumption that they would be buying the F-35B in order to replace the Harriers. As such Most of the industrial packages offered to BAE concerned that variant. With the UK looking at the C variant and the delay forcing the RN to look at the SH as interim that could become permanent, BAE had no interest to accommodate Cameron’s plan to buy the F-35C.

You end up with £2bn to fit one carrier with EMALS that would themselves been funded by the USN with potential royalties should the technology be exported to India or France for example. But of course since BAE would only be helping to integrate rather than designing the thing, they would not have it.

Another thing however is the rumours about the room for “US eyes only” that the US were allegedly forcing on the UK if they integrated the EMALS which could not have been very nice…