Why not post it in the EFT news thread ?

You’re mixing things up. The limited ELINT/SIGINT capabilities are a byproduct and not a design goal. The design goal was to allow the detection and geolocation of threats to best avoid them in real time. That’s not a tactical tool ; that’s a key mission enabler.

ELINT was definitely a design goal in order to provide a key mission enabler… Resulting in a effective tactical tool performing in the EM (ESM, ELINT), IR and laser wave length.

Compromise, modularity and integration

Characterization of the threat and the imperatives of development costs resulted in a compromise between the various parades available on a combat aircraft:
– avoidance leading to preventive techniques of signature reduction, terrain-following and path optimization in mission planning
– by avoiding detection and trajectory modification, which allows to adapt pro-actively in real time
– avoidance leading to neutralization by various techniques of jamming and decoy, when the previous parades have failed.
Spectra is the result of a compromise that complements real-time actions to reduce infrared and electromagnetic signatures applied to the cell and equipment of the weapon system, the automatic flight at very low altitude, and the function control of the tactical situation to which all contribute on-board sensors and data transmission network MIDS.
To ensure the functions of detection, jamming and deception in the areas broadband electromagnetic, infrared and laser, the choice is focused on a self-protection system modular and fully integrated. The modularity of Spectra is to distribute, in various parts of the wearer, sensors and transmitters diverse, working in the different spectrum in the face of multiple threats: electromagnetic radiation and infrared radiation, detection of missile or laser illumination. The main innovation is the ability to locate a threat with an accuracy of five to ten times higher than conventional systems, in order to adapt the manoeuvring, jamming or spoofing applied. Due to the complexity of the whole, a high degree of integration is necessary, so that the weapon system analyses all the elements before proposing a solution to the crew.

With Spectra, the Rafale has a self-protection system that goes beyond current counter-measures systems. Sensor fused with all components of the navigation and attack systems contributing to the discretion of the aircraft, Spectra provides the crew with a comprehensive tool for analysing the air-to-air or air-ground threat in real time, and neutralization of aggression by the most effective means available on board. Spectra not only significantly improve the survivability of the Rafale, it directly contributes to greater efficiency in accomplishing the mission.

Google translation from here

I understand that ASTAC is a tactical tool (TAC = tactical, as the name implies), whereas SPECTRA is dedicated to the mission as is SERVAL on another platform. You can’t go over any area then come back with a complete mapping of threats using SPECTRA alone. That’s why it’s inadequate for tactical ELINT/SIGINT and missions planning.

SPECTRA has been used for ELINT and tactical reconnaissance over Libya and was used for missions planning (as well as its normal ESM role).

From Thales

The SPECTRA system for the Rafale combat aircraft operates in electromagnetic, laser and infra-red domains. Using sophisticated techniques, such as interferometry for high precision DOA and passive ranging, digital frequency memory for signal coherency and active phased-array transmitters for maximum effectiveness and covertness, the highly advanced multi-sensors and artificial intelligence data fusion capabilities of SPECTRA provide the Rafale aircraft with the best chance to survive in harsh and lethal environments. The Rafale combat aircraft and the SPECTRA system are fully operational onboard the French Navy’s Rafale.

Offering unique high sensitivity detection and multiple threat capability, and operating smart data fusion between multi-spectral sensors, it provides identification, location, jamming and decoying against an extensive range of electromagnetic, infra-red and laser threats.

Additionally, SPECTRA fulfils new functions in a combat aircraft, while significantly participating in the determination of the aircraft’s tactical situation, and providing the crew with operational advantage by performing accurate threat location.

By virtue of its fully passive situational awareness capability, SPECTRA is a major contributor to the low observability concept of Rafale.

Well if I read correctly it says “while significantly participating in the determination of the aircraft’s tactical situation, and providing the crew with operational advantage by performing accurate threat location“. Which is what ASTAC provides if I’m not mistaken.

From Dassault

The SPECTRA system carries out reliable long-range detection, identification and localisation of threats, allowing the pilot to instantly select the most effective defensive measures based on combinations of radar jamming, infrared or radar decoying and evasive manoeuvres.

The angular localisation performance of the SPECTRA sensors makes it possible to accurately locate ground threats in order to avoid them, or to target them for destruction with precision guided munitions.

The outstanding capability of SPECTRA regarding airborne threat localisation, is one of the keys of the RAFALE’s superior situational awareness.

Also instrumental in SPECTRA’s performance is a threat library that can be easily defined, integrated and updated on short notice by users in their own country, and in full autonomy.

Event there, SPECTRA is a mission tool as is SABRE or CAMELEON on M2K. A tactical tool shall have a wider focus that SPECTRA cannot provide (band-limited, low power output, etc).

I would say SPECTRA is more effective than ASTAC because ASTAC role is simply to analyse a signal (ASTAC = Analyseur de Signaux TACtiques), while it’s stated to be able to analyse ~400 different signals (which I concede might be way more than SPECTRA can do, but I’m just guessing).

So both systems use wide bands, interferometry etc. Except SPECTRA is also an offensive system, while ASTAC is a fully passive system. Both systems are described as “tactical”. It might be possible for ASTAC to have a wider range and be able to analyse more signal at every one time, but that would be pure speculation. So unless anyone here have the precise numbers, I guess we’ll have to agree that both systems are very similar in the ELINT role, ASTAC purposely designed for mapping, interception, identification
and analysis of anti-aircraft threats and radar transmissions, multi-target detection and engagement for air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-surface missions as well as development of electronic order of battle, while SPECTRA is a compromise that add automatic terrain following and threat avoidance for high-speed blind penetration missions, offensive jamming for suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD) and self-protection.

Everything is always political, the decision to choose the Rafale with the EFT based on more than 600 technical consideration was political.
The point is India chose that path and they got what they though were best for them.

One might argue that F-16s, F-18s or F-35s are better on paper, but one forget quickly that the export version are always limited or controlled in some ways, and that ToT don’t come easily and can quickly be stopped by congress for whatever reason they chose. As Pakistan said once, the US isn’t an all-weather friend.
The sharing of the evaluation with Brazil demonstrate that the IAF is confident their evaluation isn’t too shady, and since the evaluations are supposed to be confidential I’m not sure we’ll see any leakages, unless someone with access is very unhappy, which doesn’t seem to be the case so far.

The article also conveniently forget that the F-18 couldn’t perform some trials at high altitude and that Boeing had to offer an engine’s thrust increase as part of the deal. And according to some IAF officials, they couldn’t get a firm answer when they asked critical information about the ranges and capabilities of the systems they would get (level of access which can change from one day to another depending the US political climate…).

I don’t believe that Dassault would have offered even briefly the Mirage 4000 in 2005, with the Mirage 2000 production ending, and the Rafale still unsold and desperately needing a export customer, Dassault would have offered the 4000 which is technology less advanced and would have required a lot of money to fully develop while the Rafale was already fully developed ?

Whatever the story was it wasn’t serious obviously and its a shame that paper try to surf on it.

Anyway all the aircraft had to show a clear roadmap for 40 years as part of the evaluation and F-16 and F-18 couldn’t, Mig-35 is still in development, Gripen’s chances were always slim, and EFT has a habit of been the most expansive offer on the table, so Rafale is a no brainer really.

Yes, because Argentina has no claim, and Argentina would have to be the one declare a colonialist war against Britain. Argentina will have to be the “bad guy” and will get all the international condemnation etc. Meanwhile Britain will be the “good guy” defending the islands against the evil colonialist invaders from Argentina 😎

Except the UK had Harriers and two aircraft carriers IIRC back then. It would be a lot more complicated to play the “good guy” right now. Which is why UK’s policy must be centred around dissuasion in the service of diplomacy. TLAM depend entirely on the US, and given their policy to close ties with south America and particularly Brazil (which is to become a major economy ahead of the UK) I don’t think they can rely on them 100%. That leaves 4 EFTs, and some frigates (which currently are the best dissuasion in my opinion).
I believe the UK has to give enough to Argentina to keep them happy while applying enough dissuasion so that they don’t get any further ideas. But it would be unwise to play muscle and confrontation only.

You know that how ?

New Air Force One Debuts in Pentagon Planning

Thanks, Kovy. Interesting. And perfectly logical IMO 🙂

OK for recce with Reco-NG (pictures). I still don’t believe SPECTRA is that magic it may have been that useful for Elec OrBat assessment (if so, why bother to keep ASTRAC?).

Why bother keeping obsolete F1s, or the Mirage 2000 ?
Contrary to other air forces, the AdA doesn’t have the habit of throwing away brand new equipment, or aircraft with plenty of life left in them.
The fact that ASTRAC was used isn’t a proof that SPECTRA could not have perform similar function. The fact that the F1 is still in service isn’t a proof that Mirage 2000 and Rafale are less capable.

Whether or not SPECTRA was used to map and recon Libya air defence system is irrelevant. AdA operate C-160G for a reason. However the fact that SPECTRA was able to penetrate inside denied airspace unopposed is a demonstration of its capability. Of course we could argue until the second coming whether it’s a “magic” system or not. As far as I’m concerned, technology is science, not magic. And when technology work for the purpose it was created, then that’s called success.