SPECTRA isn’t just a RWR system, it’s would be more just to compare it with the SH Growler for comparison.
Thales has had a lot of experience developing systems for the Mirage 2000N, and they were able to bring that experience into SPECTRA with the help of EADS. The SIGNIT/ELINT capabilities of the Rafale are simply not common to other “air superiority oriented” aircraft.

Now how effective is SPECTRA no one knows and the AdA recently claimed they were still discovering all the possibilities themselves. They did demonstrate their abilities to operated within denied airspace, and even if they didn’t operate in the most dangerous part of Libya what they did is still interesting to consider. We don’t know what systems Libya was able to buy and field at the very last minute, but even the RAF have reported the EM threat to have been quite high during the conflict thanks to radar installation having been repaired etc.

They would not have deployed F-18G, B-2s etc if the threat was not at least high enough for such platform to be relevant.

To be fair SPECTRA had help from the C-160G and other assets that had been monitoring the sky for days and weeks. Still the AdA was bombing Lybia a full day before the Tomahawks trike with AASM and LGB, not with cruise missiles like the RAF.

Rafale doesn’t have a towed decoy like the F-18G, F-22 and F-35 and many other aircraft IIRC.

I don’t recall doing anything of the sort.

That’s not something the IAF can take for granted when a nearly 7000km long border has to be defended against two first rate air forces.

First of all if you need to protect a area you’ll put in place early warning ground radar along with SAM systems in order to protect the most vital parts. Then you’ll have AWACS flying to plug the gaps, and your fighters will be used to ID suspicious tracks or provide air patrol (to protect AWACS, tankers or patrol most likely entry points). I really don’t know where you get your idea that a country would rely only on its fighters to provide zone protection. It would be incredibly expansive to rely only on fighters been airborne to provide a radar picture.

The only times I can recall of fighters relying only on their own radar were in attack mission deep inside enemy territory where operating AWACS was too dangerous. Even small countries like Sweden and/or Switzerland have relied in the past on ground based radar, Sweden making in the end the choice to develop a AEW&C platform (a very daring move for such a small country).
If you’re a aircraft operating over enemy territory, you better hope your self protection is far better than your radar.

The idea of using the F-22 to provide targets coordinates is a result of a lack of sufficient numbers and an attempt to try and balance the odds. So far it has not been demonstrated to be effective. They also intended to build new variant of B1b bomber to play the role of missile trucks but they were never built to date.

If a modern air force cannot provide enough survivability and availability to its fleet of AWACS to be reliable, then there is a huge problem. If you cannot “count on it” then you’re doing something wrong.
It should rather be count on it but be prepared just in case.

Now should Rafale face a aircraft capable to detect it before it can do the same. The question is can Rafale survive long enough to get in range of its own sensors/weapons ? That’s where SPECTRA comes into play. Dassault obviously knew they could never be 100% sure Rafale would always have first look first launch even if they tried their best.

Anti BVR tactics do exist, and two aircraft flying Mach 1.8 each will merge pretty fast…

‘Effective’ meaning what?

Cheaper yes, but then that Jaguar fleet will be able carry out at least three times as many sorties in the same time period.

Besides, you’re totally overlooking the point that I was illustrating – the Rafale is being acquired for its multirole capabilities, and if air superiority is assured by total coverage of airspace by AEW&C aircraft, you’re better off with a bomb truck.

When a thread start generating too much BS maybe it’s time to give it a rest for a while don’t you think ?

Are you sure you want to compare the all digital Rafale with advanced multi-role capabilities with the Jaguar ?

Are you sure you want to rate the PAF which is inducting bvr missiles for the first time of its history about now or in the near future on the same level as the PLAAF and IAF ?

The point is even small countries are making the effort to spend on AEW&C platform that are becoming cheaper because you simply cannot replace them with fighter jets playing “mini AWACS”, and in such an environment the maximum range of a radar isn’t as important as his reliability, multi-modes, cost effectiveness etc.
Now and until someone can prove the CAPTOR to be “superior” in range or whatsoever to the RBE2 this discussion is becoming pointless.

Impressive ! Must all have had such a scare !:D

JSF to cost almost $70 million each
Per LM’s Tom Burbage…

I don’t think anybody believes that any more unless Australia is willing to buy the JSF without most of its capabilities…

Anyway from an pure engineering perspective I really want the CAPTOR-E to be developed if possible.

The C is 4,500lb heavier than the A (34,800lb vs 29,300lb empty) . You are correct in that wing folding mechanisms, tail hooks, and dual nose-wheels also add to the cost.

Then again, the C does not have a gun which would add even more cost to the C if it were used for the AF. It would also loose out on range since the gun would take up fuel space.

Did you mean that the C would have the advantage over the A because of more fuel ?

Anyway if the complexity of the C model isn’t enough to make it more expansive in fly away cost, it will also make it more expansive in life-cycle cost and the gun pod would have to be bought since I don’t think the USAF will want to retire the gun completely.

It may have been already posted but a nice video can never be posted too often.