Vomad PESA AESA antennas are LRUs exactly as EOTS is. 2 hours is neded to swap antennas. It is complete misconeption to think tyat “old Rafale” have PESA while “new” have AESA. The backend was always itended to receive AESA antennas.

FYI I didn’t say anything about ‘old’ or ‘new’ Rafales. That the radar is fairly easy to upgrade doesn’t change the fact that the bulk of the French fleet will be PESA equipped to the middle of the next decade. Point being, just because there’s something new available doesn’t mean make existing technology obsolete.

The advantage of a pod is you can easily change it, set it (or not) for a mission. The F-35 isnt really FOC and its sniper XR based EOTS is already obsolete, whatever arguments on ecan use to try to say the opposite.That is the disadvantage of inner mounted stuff (agree it has advantages for stealth etc.)

Just FYI the Damocles pod that the Rafale has been lugging around for the last decade (and will continue to use for a while yet), is also a generation behind contemporary Rafael/LM offerings. There too people could scream “obsolete!!” but given that it was getting the job done (much like the EOTS), the worst you could call it is ‘obsolescent’.

Also, the EOTS is like the OSF, it pops right out. Functionally, it isn’t significantly different from a pod. Originally, only half the F-35 fleet was supposed to be equipped with them but the operators later decided they wanted to retain it on all units on all missions, making it a standard part of the aircraft.

Finally you have apparently no idea of SCAF advances, neither of SNECMA work on engines. Definition phase is done, Demonstrator is contracted and scheduled for 2025. For the sake of your knowledgeKAveri is a variable cycle engine and it is indian…

The SCAF is still in a conceptual stage. Assuming it bears fruit (far from a given at this stage), it’ll enter service with a new engine earliest by 2035. The F-35 re-engining is expected around 2025. There’s no comparison between the maturity of the two.

And no, the Kaveri is very much a conventional engine, the “variable-cycle” bit is a difference in terminology (and long pre-dates Safran involvement). The Kaveri has a constant bypass ratio which makes it very different from what GE & PW are working on.

In this particular area (GaN) it is probable the rafale will enjoy for some times a lead over the F35.

How? The F3R employs GaAs elements. The F4 employing a GaN EW system will enter service in 2025 (we’ll see about the radar & auxiliary panels when they’re actually confirmed). On what basis are you assuming that the F-35 Block 4.4 (inducted in the same time-frame) will not employ similar GaN based gear?

Thales GroundMaster radars are operational since 2010 and works with GaN, but also SEA FIRE which production has begun for the French navy FTI frigates. There is the NS200 also for naval application with GaN antennas. You can add the APAR Block 2 which is a GaN radar (X-band) again for naval application.

I’m quite familiar with the SeaFire, NS200 & APAR Blk2 offerings, and I’m sure we’ll eventually see them operational. From what I can tell, the production of S-band GaN elements for the GroundMaster began in 2012, assuming a build-integration-delivery cycle of 2-3 years, so yes a GaN model definitely would be operational by now.

AIR & COSMOS MAGAZINE 2329

Un démonstrateur d’émetteur Spectra au nitrure de gallium est attendu en 2014.

Dans les laboratoires de la fonderie UMS, detenue a parts egales par EADS et Thales, une revolution se prepare. Des l’an prochain, une filiére de production de semi-conducteurs au nitrure de gallium (GaN) en bande X devrait etre qualifiee. C’est une premiere pour l’Europe. Depuis cette annee, UMS etait deja parvenu a maitriser la production de compo-sants GaN fonctionnant en bande S, visant notamment le marche de la gamme de radars Ground Master de Thales.

Mais la realisation d’elements en bande X restait jusqu’alors l’apanage des Etats-Unis. Pour l’heure, les radars a antenne active developpes en Europe, comme le RBE2- AESA du Rafale, utili-sent des composants en arseniure de gallium (GaAs) comme ampEifi-cateurs hyperfrequences en bande X. “A taille equiva-lente, le GaN amene la promesse d’un gain de facteur 5 sur la puissance emise”, explique l’ingenieur en chef de l’armement Xavier Grison, de la Direction generale de l’armement. C’est done bien l’avenir des radars aeroportes qui se joue sur cette revolution techno-logique. “Avec le GaAs, la marge de progression est faible et les radars actuels sont deja a leur limite haute en termes de performances”, ajoute l’ingenieur.

Le GaN en bande X qualifie en 2013.

Depuis plusieurs annees, a la faveur de programmes d’etudes amont (PEA) successifs, la Direction generale de l’armement a favorise l’emergence de cette technologie. Le dernier PEA en date, baptise Ganiméde, doit aboutir a la realisation de prototypes de composants en bande X representatifs de ceux qui pourront etre utilises dans un systeme operationnel. Au titre du calendrier actuel, cette etape devrait etre atteinte d’ici deux a trois ans. Mais des l’an prochain, la filiére GaN sera deja qualifiee, ce qui signifie que le processus industriel sera maitrise et que les performances ainsi que la fiabilite du composant auront été clairement caracterisées

Restera a trouver l’application qui permettra au GaN de prendre son envoi et d’assurer un plan de charge significatif a UMS. Par rapport au GaAs, qui s’était rapidement impose dans les telecommunications sans fil, le GaN presente moins de debouches potentiels dans le civil. Selon Xavier Grison, il faudra attendre au moins cinq ans avant de voir de premieres applications opera-tionnelles du GaN sur des systemes aeroportes.

Faire évoluer Spectra.

Mais le Rafale bénéficiera indéniablement de la technologie GaN à plus ou moins long terme. Déjà, un PEA baptisé InCas (Intégration de nouvelles capacités à Spectra) étudie le remplacement des émetteurs au GaAs actuels par des émetteurs au GaN. Dans le cadre de ce PEA, un démonstrateur d’émetteur Spectra au GaN est attendu fin 2014. Le gain potentiel se situe au niveau de l’augmentation de la puissance d’emission, du rendement et de la largeur de bande couverte.

Ici encore, la mise en production de tels systemes reste liee au timing des evolutions Rafale et n’est pas attendue avant la prochaine decennie. Encore plus futuriste, mais tout aussi plausible : le remplacement des radars de pointe avant actuels par des antennes conformes, véritables “peaux” intelligentes qui pourraient être facilement disséminées sur la cellule et combineraient des fonctions radars, brouillage, communications.

A Spectra gallium nitride emitter demonstrator is expected in 2014.

In the laboratories of the UMS smelter, jointly owned by EADS and Thales, a revolution is being prepared. Next year, an X-band gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor production line should be qualified. This is a first for Europe. Since this year, UMS has already managed to control the production of GaN components operating in the S band, targeting in particular the Thames Ground Master range of radars.

But the realization of elements in X band remained hitherto the prerogative of the United States. For the time being, active antenna radars developed in Europe, such as the Rafale RBE2-AESA, use gallium arsenide (GaAs) components as X-band microwave amperes. , the GaN brings the promise of a gain of factor 5 on the power emitted, explains the chief engineer of the armament Xavier Grison, of the General direction of the armament. So this is the future of the airborne radars that plays on this techno-logical revolution. “With GaAs, the margin of progression is low and current radars are already at their high limit in terms of performance,” adds the engineer.

The X-band GaN qualifies in 2013.

For several years, thanks to successive upstream studies programs (PEA), the Directorate General of Armament has promoted the emergence of this technology. The latest PEA, called Ganimede, should lead to the production of prototype X-band components representative of those that can be used in an operational system. Under the current schedule, this step should be reached within two to three years. But next year, GaN will be qualified, which means that the industrial process will be mastered and the performance and reliability of the component will have been clearly characterized.

Remain to find the application that will allow the GaN to take his shipment and ensure a significant load plan UMS. Compared to the GaAs, which had quickly become imperative in wireless telecommunications, the GaN has fewer potential opportunities in the civilian sector. According to Xavier Grison, it will take at least five years to see the first operational applications of GaN on airborne systems.

Develop Spectra.

But the Rafale undeniably benefit from GaN technology in the longer term. Already, a PEA called InCas (Integration of new capabilities at Spectra) is studying the replacement of current GaAs transmitters by GaN transmitters. As part of this PEA, a GaN Spectra transmitter demonstrator is expected at the end of 2014. The potential gain lies in the increase in transmission power, efficiency and covered bandwidth.

Here again, the production of such systems remains linked to the timing of the Rafale evolutions and is not expected before the next decade. Even more futuristic, but equally plausible: the replacement of the current front-end radars with compliant antennas, true ?? skins ?? smart that could be easily scattered on the cell and combine functions radar, jamming, communications.

F3R : it is not about rumor but this interview in aviationweek :

Spectra with GaN is being flown and tested since late 2014 (source Air & Cosmos).

I did not post everything but there are plenty of other research program to support new technologies that will apply to the rafale F4 and eventually to the SCAF (stealth, engines etc)

The takeaway from the F3R’s altogether GaAs sensors ought to be that just because a technology is in development doesn’t mean its viable, economical or production ready.

Given that LM, Raytheon & NG are still the only manufacturers with GaN radars operational in the field, and will be the first to roll out a GaN EW system in 2022, its bit hard to take the idea of the Rafale F4 featuring “some technologies ahead of the F35 like full GaN tech“.

For those wondering what interview Halloweene is referring to –

Colonel Harold Van Pee: “The annual F-35 operating costs will be similar to those of the F-16”

The architect for the replacement of the F-16s was Colonel Harold Van Pee, who heads the Defense team (ACCaP), who conducted the evaluation of the candidates who led the government’s selection of the F-35. A procedure that has come to an end in a relatively short time, for those who know the markets of military aviation.

Only two of the five candidates initially interested have applied for the Belgian market. Some said it was proof that the Request for Government Proposal (RfGP) was designed for Lockheed Martin. What do you answer them?

That does not make sense. This happens all the time as candidates withdraw after showing a sign of interest. For the replacement of the mine hunters, this is also the case: they started at 5 and are no more than 3. Some assess their chances on the basis of the RfGP, look who participates and decide to start or not. Because it is a serious investment. You have to get some data. There are dozens of people who have to write the final offer, which was 3,000 pages at Lockheed and Eurofighter! It costs millions. If some feel they have little chance of winning, they do not participate.Especially if it’s transparent. Nobody wants to lose because it can damage the reputation for future markets.

Do we finally know why the French have chosen to submit a proposal out of competition?

I do not know. It’s pretty incomprehensible. Usually, this is not a problem to withdraw. It is said that the tender is not suitable or that it is oriented … And nobody finds anything wrong. Since everything was public, it is difficult to say that the RfGP was geared towards a candidate.

Up to a week before the deadline for submitting the offer, they were still attending meetings with us. Something happened the last week of August 2017. What? I do not know. It is true that the French had at that time several defense ministers, that the chief of staff of the armies had resigned and that of the General Delegation of the armament (DGA) arrived at the end of mandate. They also had problems in India. What I can say is that all that was in the French partnership proposal was precisely what the RfGP was asking for. They could have offered it as part of the procedure.

And the other two original candidates, Boeing and Saab?

Maybe Boeing did not feel supported by his government. As for Saab, everyone said it was because of nuclear. In fact, they made it clear – and they came to explain it to us – that the Swedish government could not provide the support that Belgium demanded for external operations.

Did the Defense want a device with a nuclear capability, even if it was not in the RfGP?

There is no reference to a nuclear capability in the RfGP.Except for a sentence that requires a device capable of operating in an environment NBC (Nuclear, Chemical, Bacteriological, Ed).

And stealth?

You refer to an article that concluded that the Belgian government would have accepted, at NATO level, to have a capability of suppressing enemy anti-aircraft defenses (Sead). Which would have resulted in the obligation to purchase a stealth aircraft. It’s completely wrong. NATO admitted that there was a gap in this area.But Sead has several aspects: weapons fired from a distance, more advanced radars and other techniques, which some call stealth. It was therefore logical to mention such a capacity in the RfGP. It would have been completely abnormal not to do it! From there to saying that we wanted a stealth fighter plane, that’s not true. If we follow this logic, it would mean that the French would be obliged to buy the F-35 … The European Armaments Agency also refers in its documents to this ability Sead, in terms sometimes more explicit than the Nato.

The Rafale and the Eurofighter, and even the F-16, also have some stealth capabilities. The French also believe that the Rafale is the best plane in the world for Sead missions. Better than the F-35!

Is it true that the F-35 maintenance software can block all planes from the USA?

No. This is not correct. For the simple reason that not all F-35s are in constant contact with this system.

How to explain that the price obtained by Belgium is lower than expected? Has the US government agreed to lower prices?

The F-35 is built 250 copies per year, against 10 or 15 for other devices … If you take the total amount divided by the number of devices that we buy, the purchase price for Belgium is 76.3 million euros for the aircraft ready to fly. The United States has dropped the portion of historical development costs that should have been paid to them. A gift of 475 million dollars. This kind of reduction, which the US has already granted for other purchases, was becoming rarer. But here they were pushed back by the competition with the British. They also exempted Belgium until 2030 from their portion of future development costs, or 7.2 million per year.

Criticism has been raised about the costs of using the F-35. Can we quantify these costs?

Basically, an hour of flying F-35 costs 30% more than the F-16 in operating costs. But we will steal 30% less hours. Because we will have fewer planes and we will practice more on simulator. In total, where 222 million euros are needed for the F-16s in annual operating costs, we will increase to 229 million. This is much less than what had been planned as a ceiling in the Strategic Vision (270 million). We will stay more or less the same amount, even if the flight time on F-35 is actually more expensive. This is also seen when comparing A400M and C-130 or NH-90 with Agusta.

How will maintenance be done?

Major maintenances, like those for the 300 hours, are removed. As the aircraft have become modular, it will no longer be necessary to immobilize a plane for months. We can just change a module, which will be sent to the civilian industry. There will be less to do in unity. We will have about 250 technicians less on both bases.

What can the Belgian industry expect for maintenance and other benefits?

It could be associated with the maintenance of the F-35 but not only at the Belgian level, but well European or worldwide. The idea is to strengthen the competitive position of the Belgian defense industry to help it position itself in a global market. With Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Wittney (engine manufacturer), the Belgian State will invest (277 million for the government) in the know how of Belgian firms to help them win markets, for the F-35 but also for other markets. But there is no 100% guarantee that these firms will win these markets.

Is not arriving after everyone going to make things very difficult?

That’s true in part. But there are still a lot of activities to allocate. It is a very competitive system. It’s not because we win a market that it’s forever.The Americans really want to lower the cost of the plane. That’s how it works in the civilian sector as well.

Could the F-35 market change the Belgian aeronautical industrial landscape?

Whenever contracts have to be redistributed, there will be winners and losers. LM and P & W toured Belgian companies for three years to identify opportunities. It is also in their interest to succeed because it will serve as a model for other future markets. But it is possible that some firms have been less consulted than others. And that some that do not have much to do for the moment in the aeronautical sector will perhaps be more spoiled in the future …

Are these transfers of skills and the opportunity to participate in these markets the only benefits offered by Lockheed?

No. One-third of the proposals relate to the production of parts for the F-35, at the global level. Another third is the implementation of the F-35. I am thinking, for example, of the use of simulators. Finally, the third third concerns measures that are not directly related to the F-35, such as cybersecurity or sensitive components.

• 15 NOVEMBER, 2018
• SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM
• BY: GREG WALDRON
• SINGAPORE

Lockheed Martin has won a $22.7 billion contract to supply 255 F-35 Lightning II fighters for the three branches of the US armed services and international operators.

The contract covers 106 F-35s for the USA, comprising 64 F-35As for the air force, 26 F-35Bs for the marines, and 16 F-35Cs for the navy, a US Department of Defense contract announcement states.

In addition, 71 F-35As and 18 F-35Bs will go to international programme participants, and 60 F-35As to customers under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process.

Lockheed receives an initial installment of $6 billion upon signing.

The announcement states that the US aircraft will come from production lot 12. It does not state the production lot for the F-35s destined for the international participants and FMS buyers.

A rough calculation pegs the average cost per aircraft at $89 million. The deal covers F-35 production into 2023.

The work will be undertaken at several locations, with the lion’s share (57%) at Fort Worth, Texas.

The award follows drawn-out negotiations between the Department of Defense and Lockheed to lower the aircraft’s price. In September, the two parties signed a landmark deal that lowered the price of F-35As procured in low rate initial production (LRIP) lot 11 to $89.2 million, dropping below $90 million for the first time, and 5.4% better than the previous production lot.

The September deal saw the unit prices of the short-take-off vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B drop 5.7% to $116 million, and the carrier capable F-35C’s 11.1% to $108 million.

Deliveries under the September agreement commence in 2019.

In addition, Lockheed also won a $382 million contract to produce eight MH-60R anti-submarine warfare helicopters for the US navy.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/massive-f-35-deal-covers-production-into-2023-453656/

There is an opportunity cost attached to retaining all that know-how. Spending say… $20 bn on R&D would eat up half of France’s $40 bn defence budget but only consume 3% of the $650 bn US defence budget. That has an impact on maintenance and procurement budgets all the way down the line.

Fewer tanks. fewer aircraft, fewer naval vessels, fewer personnel… and a reduced capacity for overseas deployment. All elements that go into the making of a so-called “first-rate power”.

~ Export Numbers:

Mirage III: 1000 units across 21 operators (70% of total)

Mirage 2000: 300 units across 7 operators(50% of total)

Rafale: 100 units across 3 operators (30% of total)

SCAF: ???
_______________________

The SCAF might score a few export orders but the pickings are already slim and they’re going to get a lot slimmer.

Its all very well to be unaligned but lets face it, there are only a handful of countries with both the willingness and capacity to pay to acquire such an aircraft. Also, the competition will include not just the Russians but also the Chinese.

New generation aircrafts are expensive to develop but this need to be mitigated :

1) There are fewer types to develop. For instance rafale is progressively replacing every types in inventory (mirage IV, mirage F1, jaguar, SE, mirage 2000…)
2) Product life cycle is longer.

It should also be noted that there should be some porting between rafaleF4/Fx/MLU/whatever and SCAF to gain time and money. Same is intended for Tempest. It is a continuous investment with incremental upgrades and standards…With a bump when you need a new airframe but you don’t start from scratch for every systems. And in parallel there are continuously several research program going on preparing for newer technology for the rafale or a future airframe (PEA/LEA etc).

I’m afraid none of what you’re describing is unique to France.

1) The F-35 is progressively replacing the A-10, F-16, F-15C, F-18 and Harrier.
2) Its product life cycle is longer than its predecessors as well.

Same goes for equipment-mix. All manufacturers go for a blend of proven tech and new innovative tech – none of them start from scratch for every system. And ‘continuous investment’ is a part of US & Chinese planning as well.

That being said, an evolutionary approach will only coast the Dassault train to a 5+ fighter.

If the SCAF is meant to be a 6th gen type intended to compete with the US PCA effort they’ll need to spend some serious money to make some big leaps. Just to put that in perspective the USAF plans to spend ~$12 bn upto 2022 on NGAD research before full scale development commences.

That’s why I am confident that even France alone can cope with such a program if the political will is maintained. In every domain (aircraft design, radar, optics, EW, engines…) France is at top level with a few othe countries. The situation would be different for some other nations where the gap to reach the next generation is much bigger.

Depends on how you define ‘cope with’ and who exactly are you referring to.

The principal challenge to the SCAF will come from the US and China both of which will offer better value-for-money to prospective customers – both because they invest more in R&D (though China is currently in catch-up mode) and because the size of their procurement budgets allows for much larger economies of scale.

The other big obstacle to the SCAF is the shrinking market. Already the list of countries that are willing to spend $4-5 bn for a squadron of Rafales has become a short one. The number that can afford to pay whatever the SCAF costs will be much shorter. Probably just India and a couple of Gulf sheikhdoms. Both iffy propositions in the 2040s – India because of the US competition and the Gulf states due to economic factors as well as US/Chinese competition.

It is a given that SCAF or Tempest will not match economies of scale of US NGF or the cheaper approach of Russian aircrafts. But there is a strategic rationale : remain independent and keep the know-how. Price isn’t the only factor to go ahead.

There is an opportunity cost attached to retaining all that know-how. Spending say… $20 bn on R&D would eat up half of France’s $40 bn defence budget but only consume 3% of the $650 bn US defence budget. That has an impact on maintenance and procurement budgets all the way down the line.

Fewer tanks. fewer aircraft, fewer naval vessels, fewer personnel… and a reduced capacity for overseas deployment. All elements that go into the making of a so-called “first-rate power”.

Still the rafale managed to win some exports despite lower production output compared to the US so why not the SCAF or Tempest ? You don’t necesseraly want to be aligned with US or Russia so it is nice to have another choice.

~ Export Numbers:

Mirage III: 1000 units across 21 operators (70% of total)

Mirage 2000: 300 units across 7 operators(50% of total)

Rafale: 100 units across 3 operators (30% of total)

SCAF: ???
_______________________

The SCAF might score a few export orders but the pickings are already slim and they’re going to get a lot slimmer.

Its all very well to be unaligned but lets face it, there are only a handful of countries with both the willingness and capacity to pay to acquire such an aircraft. Also, the competition will include not just the Russians but also the Chinese.