It’s natural for Brazil to play both games. They will be vocal about Argentine’s claim of the island so as to get their support, but I doubt they’ll go any further than that for the moment. They’re willing to modernize their navy and I understand the UK is well placed to sell them a few frigates that would bring the two nations closer…

Politics is a dirty business.

I’m sorry to say you’re going way too far. The keyword is ASTAC (along with PRESTO), not SPECTRA which only offers limited SIGINT capabilities.

First ASTAC isn’t operational on AdA Mirages 2000 yet. Integration work has started this year, and they should be operational by 2014.

Thales to adapt ASTAC reconnaissance pods for Mirage 2000D

ASTAC is currently deployed by Mirage F1s in pods and on Gabriel C-160 internally (at least until the recent modernisation). As far as I know, there were no F1s during the first AdA strikes. As such AdA seems to think that Rafale’s SPECTRA can do the job at least as well as ASTAC.

PRESTO cannot be compared with the Reco-NG pod, and if it was so AdA would have simply integrated the former on the Rafale instead of asking Thales to develop the very expansive Reco-NG program.

No one makes assumptions in wartime. If a disabled radar site was determined to be active again, it was only because emissions were traced back there. Perhaps not with a very high degree of accuracy, but done so nonetheless.

You’re making assumptions as well. I believe NATO had a map with the location of the Libian air defences. Detecting an active site that had been destroyed earlier should not be too difficult. In fact I’m only wondering myself why couldn’t the Tornados pick it up themselves (or did the RAF needed some good news:rolleyes:)

Huh? You just repeated my argument back to me. The Reccelite isn’t operational but as you put it ‘the capability has been integrated’.

Nope, the capability isn’t integrated yet. It’s been integrated. There is a world of difference.

Ahh… so a capability can only exist if its been demonstrated in wartime. I suppose F-22 doesn’t have the ability to operate in the dangerous environment posed by first rate Libyan air defences, either.

Every company can claim capabilities for its aircraft, but “combat proven” is the definitive proof that the system exist and work as advertised. The fact that the UAE dropped most upgrade requirements after Libya is proof that Rafale worked in combat as advertised (or mostly).
Concerning EFT they’ve never advertised SEAD/DEAD capabilities and they haven’t demonstrated it in exercises (that we know of) or in combat (that we know of).
Concerning the F-22, given that it was grounded for most of the war, I’ll let you answer that one yourself.

To sum up.. the Reccelite cannot perform the role it was designed for viz. IMINT. And seeing as its the only pod operational with it, the RAF has no IMINT capability outside of its UAV fleet.

The IMINT role is currently provided by Tornados with the RecceLite, while the capability is been integrated on EFT. Now I didn’t say RecceLite isn’t IMINT capable, I said, it’s a tactical system that will have limited stand off range.

Anti-ship weapons no. Everything else is your own personal spin on things.

During MMRCA, EFT did a lot of “preliminary work” to study the “feasibility” of integrating many systems including HARM, TVN, AESA, RecceLite, various air to ground munitions including anti-ship missile etc. That doesn’t mean that all these thing are integrated and operational on EFT.

To claim that “Rafale is a true 5th generation aircraft”, is just as bollox as, “Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F.” There ain’t half some first class Planks that like to troll, eh. :rolleyes:

I guess personal attacks are so much better when one has nothing to say and is willing to join in the trolling party…

oh seahawk, sometimes you are such a stirrer.

So something like this isn’t simply a case of suggesting that the rafale is very good at confusing 30-40 year old SAM radars?

Thats the way i read it rather than proof that Rafale literally disappears from radar coverage….

40 year old radars that necessitated the use of B-2 stealth bombers and F-18G electronic aircraft ? Even the RAF admitted to have faced serious EM threats in Libya, and they made sure the threat was minimum by degrading it with Tomahawks and Storm Shadows before getting inside Libyan air space…

There is of course an element to this discussion which is hypothetical.

Non of us should have the information required to understand how the RAF deploy their ELINT assets (and what their capabilities are) and given that SPECTRA is apparently of strategic importance it is not possible that anyone on this forum is posting 100% accurate information or has a thorough understanding of its capability.

It is silly for anyone to claim that they understand fully how each of the systems works.

As i erroneously posted on the Typhoon thread, the Fox 3 article seems to suggest that Rafale is very good at either jamming or spoofing or both, but it does not disappear (the inference being it is using active cancellation).

We don’t have any precise intel about these systems and we never will, however we know every modern country is working on ways to increase the survivability of their aircraft and that Thales and MBDA have been working on various techniques that may have been used in Libya. What active cancellation really is, we don’t know, but it might include anything from making it impossible for the enemy radar to lock on, to disappearing or at least reducing the distances at which an aircraft can be seen.

What’s interesting about these claims is that neither one states that SPECTRA was actually used alone to determine target coordinates for the AASM. The aircraft was in fact largely reliant on the Damocles to obtain accurate target coordinates. So what does it mean for the supposed accuracy of SPECTRA when it comes to geo-location for generating target coordinates?

It means the very good sensors fusion on the Rafale will be used every-time total discretion isn’t required. Very high accuracy is always better achieved with LDP, and Libya was a theatre that required very high accuracy. Some targets were destroy far outside the range of Damocles however, and while I’m sure AdA already know their coordinates, we know SPECTRA was used to jam and disrupt radars, provide location of pop-up targets etc.

Did the French apparently sit in the radar operating centers to make such a claim? Or could it mean that the enemy was just unaware on the Rafale’s position which could be achieved by noise jamming for example. Or is it really a hint towards AC?

Maybe they were reading the last playboy issue and didn’t see the Rafales coming, or they probably were arguing with the wife… There will always be a reason for bad faith and incredulity. Sometimes it just get more ridiculous than other….

Everybody and their mum know that those arent for defensive purpose , but thats nothing new.Previously US have supplied paf with equipment like Sniper ATP , JDAM kits , AN/ALQ 141 etc.

The IAF’s mandate is to fight a simultaenous two front war.While IAf in its current state will be hard pressed to keep that mandate , if paf alone is considered its not a problem for the IAF.

Still you don’t buy tankers for a defensive role, and while I understand the US providing PAF with defensive equipments I thought the recent US-India collaboration would see high tech hardware that could help PAF strike inside India be banned.

DASS can do basic ELINT, but not SIGINT. More advanced ELINT should come later on. SIGINT isn’t needed but may be added in the future.

Signals intelligence

Signals intelligence (often contracted to SIGINT) is intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether between people (“communications intelligence”—COMINT), whether involving electronic signals not directly used in communication (“electronic intelligence”—ELINT), or combinations of the two. As sensitive information is often encrypted, signals intelligence often involves the use of cryptanalysis. Also, traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling whom and in what quantity—can often produce valuable information, even when the messages themselves cannot be decrypted.

As a means of collecting intelligence, signals intelligence is a subset of intelligence collection management, which, in turn, is a subset of intelligence cycle management.

ELINT and ESM

Electronic Support Measures (ESM) are really ELINT techniques, but the term is used in the specific context of tactical warfare. ESM give the information needed for Electronic Attack (EA) such as jamming. EA is also called Electronic Counter-Measures. ESM provides information needed for Electronic Counter-Counter Measures (ECCM), such as understanding a spoofing or jamming mode so one can change one’s radar characteristics to avoid them.

As far as currently available documentation tell, DASS is a tactical ESM system that will protect the aircraft against directed missile threats.
SPECTRA is a strategic SIGNIT system, with strategic EM reconnaissance capabilities (so far mostly against ground target).

SPECTRA allows the Rafale to penetrate inside denied airspace (as demonstrated in Libya), while so far DASS is a warning and protection system. The difference is subtle but it’s there.