Kovy,

My post wasn’t addressing the Italian pilots claim, and I do not know which units where involved but if you have some information which confirms that it was Rafale M’s please post it.

The RAF pilots who participated in the DACT in Solenzara also specialised in Air-to-Air, but that in itself says nothing about the experience levels of the pilots though.

As I said the more relevant and I feel overlooked factor in the result of the DACT at Solenzara was that the RAF Typhoons were restricted in performance to a degree that would have had a large impact on the outcome, even assuming a complete equality for all other factors.

I had heard the Typhoon’s at Solenzara were converting to becoming pilots, (ex-C-130 loadmasters, ex-F-3 navigators etc)!

upgraded AESA equiped Rafale…

Just thought I would underline something….

close couple canards, here is a translated quote from Bruno Revellin-falcoz a senior dassault engineer and one of the father of the rafale :

From A&C

EADS ran a few tests a while ago to find which canard position was the best option for the Typhoon, they showed that on a less instable aircraft the short-coupled config greatly increased lift versus canards well forward of the fuselage whereas on a highly instable aircraft there was no noticeable lift differences on canrd position. I’ll find the document tomorrow. The Rafale has LEX, the Typhoon dosen’t, but the Typhoon has vortex generators either side of the fuselage to create a vortex under the wings for lift with the possibility of LERX being fitted to T3A aircraft. It’s all down to EADS word versus Dassault’s, take pick.

It is probably a good idea to train together. Kind of like F-22 and F-15 working together.

Yes, the F-22 is the Typhonn and the F-15 is the….. :dev2:

Nah I’m kidding…. 😀

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.

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:)

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

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.

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.

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.

Not aimed at any particular part of your post just something I found looking around;
Eurofighter’s air dominance supremacy and versatility as a multi-role combat aircraft is marked by its highly potent and comprehensive air-to-surface attack capability:
■Air Interdiction – capable of delivering a large payload over long distances, by day or night. Multiple, flexible sensors coupled with passive modes of delivery, and the retention of a full air-to-air fit ensure a formidable weapon system
■Close Air Support – ability to remain on task for long periods. Its sophisticated sensor suite allows close co-ordination with ground commanders, and the identification of individual targets
■Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) – the combination of pinpoint navigational accuracy, highly sophisticated onboard sensors and dedicated ‘fire and forget’ weapons, ensure effective targeting of enemy air defences
■Maritime Attack – dedicated radar modes and datalink enable Eurofighter Typhoon to operate autonomously, or as part of an offensive force

@Scorpion
You quoted this :

Nothing is as accurate as a laser , not even a suite like Spectra . As a pilot , I would trust a targeting pod over an ELINT suite .
Spectra was used to slew the Damoclès pod (or/and the OSF/radar) .
What you quote is not saying anything about Spectra , it is about the pod Scorpion .

There , you are given some clues but you don ‘t seem to take them onboard , do you ?

They talk about three ways but they name only two : the pod and a third part (AWACS) . What do you think is the third mean ? 😉

You responded with :
“”Did the French apparently sit in the radar operating centers to make such a claim?“”
The answer to your question is within the quote itself :

Think about what it means and the way to archive it , please …

Vnomad :

That ‘s a negative , it doesn ‘t make it an ELINT system . Getting a bearing on a ground target within one degree of accuracy (or less) does NOT make a RWR an ELINT system , far from it in fact . Getting a visual and tone warning inside the cockpit as well as a bearing on the threat is the usual RWR ‘s job . To do ELINT , you need something a little bit better than a RWR , you need a whole system capable to do a proper EM mapping and you want the system to tell the other aircraft ‘s systems what ‘s going on and to tell them to act accordingly . This is called EMCON (EMission CONtrol) and is only used so far (AFAIK) by the F-22 and the Rafale . It is a part of the low obvservable concept by the way .
DASS does NOT do that .
I said that Spectra had twice the range of DASS (the numbers are from both official sites and should be well known by now) but Spectra also cover twice the bandwidth range of DASS (80MHz-40GHz for Spectra , 100MHz-18GHz for DASS) . If one wants to go into technical “details” (!) like instantaneous measurements of multiple frequencies simultaneously , one will learn that Spectra is also way ahead by around 40% .

Now , if we start talking about jamming techniques and how those are generated to evade , fool or hide from the adverse emiter(s) , Spectra could teach a couple of nice things to DASS 😀 Of course , the later would need some upgrades before to archive the same results .

I say again , DASS is very good self-defense system designed to warn the fighter as a safe distance from the threat(s) and to protect it at close range , the towed decoys being the “incarnation” of DASS as the last EM active line of defense (shaffs being the last passive defense) .
While DASS also has some capabilities in basic ELINT because of its own qualities , it is NOT an ELINT system .

Cheers .

‘In addition the AIS offers the ability to automatically control emissions from the aircraft, so called EMCON (from EMissions CONtrol). This should aid in limiting the detectability of the Typhoon by opposing aircraft further reducing pilot workload.’

Could you give a source for those frequency coverage figures? Also which jamming techniques does SPECTRA uniquely posses compared to DASS?

DASS managed to tell pilots that there was a SAM site active in the vicinity, and even gave a bearing. WOW.

Cause that’s all this quote says. Anything you’d guess from that would just be speculation.

Nic

I agree.Its also speculative to say that it gave only a bearing.

Signals intelligence

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.

I agree, SIGINT for DASS is only a proposal. DASS isn’t as mature as SPECTRA. More advanced ELINT is also being considered for Tranche 3.

Interferometry is not a method of ranging, it’s a way to find the bearing of a signal (and a much more accurate than using the direction finding property of spiral antennas).

Ranging is done by integrating successive measurements (“triangulation” in your link). Accuracy of the ranging estimate will heavily depend on the error in the sensor’s bearing estimate (e.g. a 0.5° error translates in 10-15% error in target range).

Idiotic.

As stated in the doc you linked, the method that realies on widely spaced antenna is differential time of arrival and it cannot be used on fighter because they’re too small.

A back of the enveloppe computation shows that for a 15x15m antenna spacing and a timing accuracy of 1ns, error will vary from +/-1° (signal coming from the front) to +/- 2° (signal coming at 45°). Not good enough and that’s using very favorable parameters (1 ns timing error).

Now put it on a B767 and suddenly you’re deep into sub-degree accuracy.

As already explained the ECM jammer uses a linear array of T/R elements, it can’t dicriminate in the horizontal plane and is thus useless for finding a bearing (but if cued on the right track, it can keep up with it and offer the best jamming pattern when it’s finally turned on).

It’s also limited to X-band.

Thats funny, Tornado ECR’s ELS has done TDOA for a while.:rolleyes:
Also isn’t it a multi-platform technique?
If you want I could give you a couple of links for the bearing accuracy being below 1 degree in accuracy :
Die von den DASS-Sensoren empfangenen Signale werden analysiert, kategorisiert, identifiziert, priorisiert und auf Entfernungen bis zu über 100km mit einer Genauigkeit besser als 1° lokalisiert.
http://eurofighter.airpower.at/sensorik-dass.htm
The accuracy of the RWR/ESM is to be below one degree in azimuth.
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1180&start=0