Mildave
Sorry I couldn’t resist…
Frustrating isn’t it when someone just keep making assumptions, and in “some” cases even when those assumptions have already been proven wrong, or at least been put into serious doubt !
And there’s still nothing to stop Typhoon from doing exactly the same, though the combo of DASS and PIRATE means that Typhoon might even do it more effectively than Rafale with SPECTRA and (for those Rafales that have the full-up dual channel version
Swiss eval anyone ?
MildaveWhat assertion? What conclusion? The only assertion I made was that Jackoniko’s claim could be checked by studying the antenna locations on the aircraft. I offered no opinion on the accuracy of his claim, so am under no obligation to produce data that supports or does not support his statement. All I did was to indicate a potential approach that would cast further light on the question, should anyone be interested in pursuing it.
I was not volunteering to do the job myself, given that I was not challenging his assertion.
Sorry if I was under the impression that you agreed since you said you were not challenging his assertion…
No such upgrade programmes have been reported. And Libya’s attempts to defend its airspace seem to have been singularly unsuccessful in the face of NATO SEAD operations. For example, as the rebel forces closed on Tripoli, a major SEAD operation was mounted in the Tripoli area.
I was just wondering whether, when a country is in the brink of war, the defence site protecting its airspace could not receive some upgrades to their radars in order to make them more effective. The use of B2s, Tomahawks, and Growler simply seems an over kill for a country whose air defence installations are in the hands of rebel or deserted, wouldn’t you agree ?
But in order to get that initial detection, you need to get enough power reflected from the target. Since beam dwell time is one of the factors that influences the amount of energy returned, reducing dwell time reduces detection range.
Because you’re using a fixed antenna, and your radar waves are automatically managed by your mission computer, it will adjust to whatever mode your radar is on. If you’re trying to detect long range targets then you’ll spend more time, more energy and higher frequencies scanning the sky. Because you don’t have to rotate your antenna, you don’t have to wait on a fixed part of the sky before moving on.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US EW community to too lazy or set in its ways to look for alternatives to towed decoys? I know enough about its current R&D plans to be aware of at least some of the technologies under study. They are pushing the state of the art.
No sir I’m not. I’m simply suggesting that companies usually upgrade existing products because developing brand new one have a lot of risks involved and very few countries have the fund or political will to do so. As such they can offer limited upgrades to some customers at lower cost, or sell new equipments to new customers while relying on existing experience. It’s always better to sell something with the tag “in service with X+ other air forces around the world” than “well you’re the launching customer so would you mind testing that bit of overpriced equipment for us please ?”
As for looking at recent fighter developments, few technical details have been published on the Spectra, and even less about the EW systems of the F-22 and F-35.
True enough and most of them are still in development and upgrades, but we do know none of them have gone the towed decoy path.
All we know about the Su-35 EW fit is that it uses active jammer from local or group protection active jammer; is fitted with radar-warning, missile approach warning, and laser warning systems; and chaff/flare dispensing system. I have seen no reliable information on the EW plans for the PakFa and its Chinese equivalent.
The modern approach “seem” to be to spread the EW all around the aircraft rather than use a towed decoy. Of course the future will tell us more about that… Oh and what happen when you lose your decoy ?
Mildaveahha! But in these awful times for Typhoon fans a statement of Luftwaffe intentions is big news.
It goes against the insidious suggestion that Germany doesn’t like its Typhoons, would prefer to cut their numbers and use its Phantoms and Tornadoes instead.
Because Typhoon is sooooooo bad…………….
:rolleyes:
😎 (never used that one before)
It isn’t soo bad… Just very badly managed and right now into quite of a mess… I may not be the EFT biggest fan, but I really hope they get their act together. Because the less capable they make it to be, the more reliant on US technologies like F-35 2 or 3 of the most important European power are going to be. And with the US shifting toward Asia, that is not a good thing at all.
Mildave@BlueApple
Some technology being transferred and tailored to the specific requirement of a different carrier isn’t “same arrangement”. According BAES DASS ESM can achieve a better bearing accuracy than Captor. Even the good old SPO-29 of the MiG-29M offered a bearing accuracy up to 5° depending on the wave length of the emitter and up to 10° in the worst case. Selex is stating a bearing accuracy of <10° (less than 10°) which might cover the whole frequency spectrum. So against specific emitters in certain frequency ranges much better results could be obtained.
Well I guess without any indication of what king of target we’re all talking about, their distances, generation etc. All these numbers are pretty moot… Apparently DASS did well when coupled to Tornado to detect and ID EM threat in Libya, so…
MildaveWrt the Luftwaffe plans of course its first and foremost a wishlist at this point in time. However it shows the Luftwaffe is thinking about the future of its Typhoons and has plans to upgrade the type and extend its use by employig it in additional roles. The upgrades as stated in those articles aren’t ambitous and thus not unrealistic. However, it remains to be seen whether they materialise or not and when. Integration of additional weapons will come sooner or later amd further updates are required. As of now Typhoons have always seen upgrades ever since they entered service and while we may not see large block upgrades in the future, smaller incremental upgrades are quite a possibility.
Of course they’re, who wouldn’t ? That doesn’t mean their wishes are either realistic or serious. They have a budget, they should have a better idea of what they can really do with their aircraft and have a timeline about when they can do it. Right now there is nothing. P1E seems to be such an heavy endeavour with fitting the EFT with revolutionary L-16 links, one AtG bomb (that I don’t even know if anyone outside the RAF actually has) and obsolescences upgrades that the EFT consortium just seem out of breath! And with all the T1 been sold (or at least tried to), the T3b cancelled or reduced, it doesn’t seem enough to fund anything really… So unless they sell each screw for 1000 euros… I just don’t get it. And believe you me… I try very hard !!
MildaveWell given that the F-35 isn’t a delta configuration, that it current speed is limited at Mach 1.6 (in its best days) and that it manoeuvrability isn’t too great, it’s safe to assume there is a reason why F-22 and Pak-Fa have such a large wing surface to begin with…
Now given that most of its mission will be AtG with heavy load and certainly additional fuel tanks etc. I would bet it would not go very faster than Mach 1.2 fully loaded. Add also to that many comment by various national audits bureaux stating how bad its aerodynamics are and you start to get something of a picture. Remember the can’t climb, can’t turn, can’t run comment ?
Anyway because it has such a good weapon system I guess it doesn’t matter much if it flies or not! I guess you can even mount it on a train and use it as a point defence system… just shoot them up with your awesomeness baby !
To get more serious the only claim right now from Canada to justify an cancellation is the missing requirement for zero light visibility thing and I can’t see how on earth such a thing would justify ditching such a awesome aircraft. So my bet is they’re starting to realise there are much much more serious problem with it but they can’t really take the risk to angry Oncle Sam… So the excuses…
MildaveIs this image of French fighters ‘waltzing around’ the skies over Libya in the face of an operational SAM network an accurate one? According to French MoD press releases, air operations in the first two days were in the area of Benghazi. Before the conflict began, the area’s SAM defences seem to have consisted of two batteries of SA-2, two of SA-3, and one of SA-5. Most of these sites were close to Benghazi.
We never said Rafale went into the most defended area. They still operated into denied airspace along Mirages 2000D. Maybe I shall remember you that another aircraft got shot during that time from the rebel camp ?
Do we know if these sites were operating normally, had been attacked by the rebels, or if some or all of their crews had defected or deserted? It is possible that the only SAM systems that the Rafales faced were the mobile shorter-range systems used by the regime’s forces in the area. And my friends in Sagem would want me to remind you of the use that the Rafales made of the ASSM standoff weapon on the opening day of the conflict.
So ? They used the AASM because it’s the most effective AtG weapon currently cleared on the Rafale and it was the right tool for the job. I guess between satellites, C-160G and certainly ground operators they had a good idea were the fixed radars were and could either avoid them when necessary or destroy them. Testimonies from the pilots show that Libyan radars tried to get a lock on them for hours without success. As I said earlier, SPECTRA + AASM is a pretty effective combo. The future capability to update directly data from satellites will make it even more effective. For now L-16 allowed the strike teams to get update from the C-160G operating in the area for weeks before the bombing began.
I indicated how Jackonicko’s assertion regarding Spectra angular coverage could be checked by anyone wanting to challenge it by looking at the location of its antennas. I was not volunteering to do the job myself, given that I was not challenging his assertion.
If you’re not ready to back up your assertion with the facts that allowed you to draw such a conclusion then I’m afraid you’re walking very close to the valley of trolls… But I shall not fear :rolleyes:, I’m sure you and your buddy will be able to provide us with more than the “its obvious” kind of line. Thank you in advance.
I have just returned from seeing my doctor, who tells me that in most respects I am still 100% operational. But a long country walk last weekend made it very clear that 100% operational capability in a seventy-year old body does not amount to much when you are trying to keep up with friends who less than half your age. Reality is equally harsh for ageing air-defence and SAM systems.
The conflict took weeks before it started during which time Libya certainly tried its best to acquire hardware on the black market. They already had quite a arsenal of MANPADs and other StA weapons. They “could” have upgraded their radars (which would be the most critical in any defence, not the missiles themselves), and given how resourceful they were during all the conflict I doubt, or I would be very surprised if they didn’t do their best to denied their airspace. It’s not like Benghazi wasn’t a obvious target for the west to start. Just look at that title, French Rafale stop massacre in Benhazi… Catchy isn’t it ? Something I’m sure Sarko will be proud of…
What makes an AESA a different prospect from the other types?
In this context beside been way better at LPI modes ?
While the high scanning rate of a PESA or AESA allows a small angular sector of sky to be searched faster than is possible with e mechanically scanned radar, beam dwell time on target will be shorter, degrading the detectability of a target.
ESA radars have software that will automatically form and adapt the beam in order to make it has effective has possible for the task at hand. That mean if the radar detect something, it’s going to automatically spend more time scanning that thing before moving on. So you’re argument about beam dwell time is completely irrelevant here. Not only the ESA radar can spent as much dwelling time as it want, but it can even do so without sacrificing much in term of resources for the other tasks. Try and do that with an MScan…
The USAF concluded some three decades ago that towed or expendable decoys were the only adequate countermeasure to sophisticated monopulse threats. Their continued development of such hardware strongly suggests that this is still the case.
So a few companies that have spent some money on that particular technology is trying to get as much bucks as possible by providing a few upgrades and selling it to some countries whose airforce is familiar with that kind of system… Have you had a look at recent development in fighter aircraft like I don’t know, Rafale, F-22, F-35, Su-35, PakFa etc. ?
MildaveGhazala Wahab
New Delhi: The last mile determines whether eventually you will look back with satisfaction for a job well done or regret the opportunities missed. Hence, even as the tempo has to be maintained, the strides need to acquire flexibility and imagination to tide over the last few hurdles. The chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne’s current state of mind would be a bit akin to that of a long distance runner: a combination of pleasure and determination; anticipation and anxiety.
The so-called mother of all defence deals, the MMRCA, after the selection of Dassault Aviation’s Rafale aircraft as Lowest-1 on January 31, is now in its final leg. Proving the naysayers wrong, the over half-a-decade long acquisition process is finally going to culminate into a contract for 126 fighter aircraft on ACM Browne’s watch.
“The IAF is the main driver in this project and everything is moving on track,” he says matter-of-factly in an exclusive interview to FORCE. “While I cannot discuss details of the ongoing Contract Negotiations Committee (CNC), I will only discuss the process of acquisition which has been adopted as per Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2006. The CNC is likely to wrap up all discussions in the next eight to 10 months and we will sign the contract in the financial year 2012-2013. We have made budgetary provisions for the MMRCA in this financial year.” If things move to plan, then ACM Browne would rather have the contract signed on 15 December 2012. Surely, he would like to present the MMRCA to the IAF as a return gift on his birthday.
However, for the moment, he is conscious of what a big deal the MMRCA is going to be, not only for the IAF, but for the nation in general and the indigenous aerospace industry in particular. “MMRCA will mark a significant growth in terms of aviation production portfolio of Indian companies right up to the component level,” he says, referring to the inflow of key technologies into India once the process of license-production of the fighter starts.
😎
MildaveThe relative small use of Scalp missiles might be attributed to the AASM which already offer good stand off distances at better prices that may have been good enough for most threats present in Libya as well as the fact that the French consider the Scalp as a strategic missile which IIRC can only be authorized by the highest authorities (i.e president, prime minister…) for the most demanding missions.
MildaveI was coming to say the same. Now please keep in mind that my German is extremely bad. But from what I think I understand (please take that into account), they hope to see the T3b in 2018 and hope that selling the T1 might help them fund it. It’s the German airforce favoured approach to fund the T3b nothing else.
They are hoping newer NATO country in eastern Europe might buy the T1 or that countries willing to buy the EFT will buy some T1 in order to train their airforces.
Still I see no firm commitment from the airforce or the govt to fund any upgrade after P1E. Of course as I said, my German is certainly the worst to be found.
MildaveQualification of the basic Snecma M88-2 was completed in early 1996, with the first production engine delivered at the end of the same year.
The M88-2 has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 8.5, producing 11,250/16,850lb of dry/afterburner thrust (50/75kN). The engine has proved extremely reliable in flight tests to-date, by early May building up 6,200 flight hours on the Rafale, giving a total of 16,400h, including test bench running. “It is now ready for entry into operational service,” says Jean Massot, M88 general manager.
Development took place under a fixed (unrevealed) price contract. The engine features state of the art technologies found also in its contemporaries, including single-crystal high-pressure turbine blades, powder metallurgy discs and full authority digital engine controls. Unrestricted operation throughout the flight envelope has been demonstrated, as has “extremely fast throttle response, low observability and multimission flexibility“.
Construction is based around 21 modules, interchangeable without the need for recalibration or balancing, along with a number of line replaceable units.
Snecma is developing the M88-2 Stage 4, which has the same thrust as the standard M88-2, but incorporates improvements aimed at extending the service life of the engine and reducing fuel consumption, which Massot says “will also reduce operating costs significantly”. Another benefit will be to improve the duration of the low-level penetration missions.
The changes include the introduction of three-dimensional high-pressure (HP) compressor and turbine blades, blisks (one-piece blades and discs) improved thermal coatings on the HP turbine, and advanced cooling channels for the combustion chamber. The Stage 4 development will be ready in early 2001 and the modifications will be retrofitted to the M88-2. It will power the 48 Rafales ordered in the Government’s multi-year procurement plan.
A further development, the M88-3, rated at 9.5t thrust, still awaits funding, but has been benchtested on a privately funded demonstrator. “We are proposing the M88-3 to the French government for the future standard of the Rafale in the early 2000s and to prospective export customers”, says Massot.
The M88-3 features a new LP compressor with higher mass flow (from 65kg/s in the -2 to 73.4kg/s). A new variable stator vane stage has been introduced, permitting the engine to operate at optimum conditions through a much wider range, reducing part-power-specific fuel consumption and providing more operational flexibility to suit the Rafale’s multimission role. The development comes out of Snecma’s CENTOR LP compressor research programme and from other exploratory developments carried out by Snecma in recent years. Orders for the M88-2 stand at 42 engines, plus modules and spares, with a further order for 96 units (for the 48 Rafales) expected at the Paris air show.
MildaveThe M88-2 also incorporates the latest advances to reduce its electromagnetic and infrared signature.
MildaveMilDave,
You have again demonstrated your usual grasp of the truth, and have again highlighted your usual lack of basic knowledge. Robert Wall is of course an American citizen, as is apparent every time he pops up on TV or on webcasts.
Moreover he is an extremely Francophile American, having lived in and reported from France for some years before his move to the UK.
Thank you for the precision, because I was not sure about his nationality I chose my word carefully. Now feel free to enlighten me about the substance of what have been said…
He himself isn’t quite up to date either. Though the four partner nations have not yet allocated money to AESA they have given industry undertakings that they will do so, so the industry funding of AESA development is merely an interim arrangement.
Intent is the only things the four partner nations have been able to provide so far…
Also a UK Typhoon future capability roadmap is in place, just as it is in Germany, and the UK has committed to funding both Storm Shadow and Brimstone integration.
As it is in Italy I’m sure.
MildaveThe Mirage 2000 and the later upgrade to the Mk2 standard already had RCS reduction in mind, although nowhere near the LO concept as far as I know.
Using the concept of the delta wing interceptor seen on the Dassault Mirage III, Dassault built a new design but still using a delta wing. This configuration is not ideal with regard to maneuverability, low-altitude flight, and distance required for take-off and landing, but has advantages in high-speed flight characteristics, simplicity of construction, low radar signature and internal volume.
MildavePotential selling off of T1s not just a British thing.
Where do you think 11 of Austria EFT come from ?
Sign In
