I have my doubts that you can jam every freq in the APG-77’s range, on a narrow band, simultaneously though. You’d need a lot of emitters to cover that amount of bandwidth.

Additionally, the F-22’s ALR-94 would certainly pick up on the jamming, and get a fix of the origin. At that point the F-22 could likely get either a passive shot off, or hand off the info for a third party shot.

The APG-77 is certainly not in the priority list of the radar that spectra is supposed to be able to jam.

SU-27/30, mig-29, R-77, SA-6 (kub), SA-10/12, SA-11 (buk), SA-19 (tunguska), SA-15 (thor) and zsu-23 (shilka) are.

LOL, do you want me to confirm that the current RBE2 active phased array radar isnt an aesa either
and that a aesa type is looking at 2012 being fielded

The current RBE2 is a PASSIVE phase array radar.
An active phase array radar IS an AESA.
Clear enough ?

360 deg aesa jamming isnt that its aesa, its that it can jam aesa
do you want me to send thales an email and ask for clarification?

Yes do that
that’s gonna be fun

http://www.thalesonline.com/Pages/PressRelease.aspx?id=10850

Defensive measures based on AESA jamming…. This should need AESA…. somewhere.

Still looking for other sources.

link the PdF directly otherwise he will continue to put in doubt the website :rolleyes:

http://www.thalesonline.com/assets/0/249/250/b60f1f4c-7193-4de7-941a-87a6ed234789.pdf?LangType=2057
Jackjack > it is at the end of page 2

I don’t care what you’d like, Kovy.

What the Colonel said was clearly misleading.

was it ?
I would rather say it was cleary… clear.

I don’t need to name my sources for what I say to be true. Anonymous sources are entirely legitimate.

Then you can understand that we don’t have/need to believe a typhoon fan boy like you. Anonimous sources may be legitimate for a time but they have a very poor credibility value if nobody can check if they actually exist.

By contrast, you are accusing me of lying.

oh, Am I ?
Sorry then.

Anyway, so much for a single exercice.
The french pilots proved that the real rafale was a bit more hardcore than its virtual JOUST counterpart. Now it’s up to their RAF colleagues to learn and elaborate new tactics to counter it.

@Kovy

With the Dubai airshow ongoing near by I wouldn’t be to sure wether representives from the industry weren’t there.

yeah, drinking champagne in an air-conditioned room while they show their last shiny powerpoint… not in the jets at mach 1.5 pulling unreasonable G and loosing 2 L of sweat during each flight

You wish!

Nice photoshop…..

In fact, the latest JOUST slide used by EF GmbH (referring to a scenario pitching four AD fighters against eight FB (MiG-29) with three super-Flanker escorts and a sweep of four further Super Flankers) credited Typhoon with just over 70% of the enemy fighters and 25% of the FB, while losing just less than one aircraft (the scenario was run many times, and kills and losses were averaged) – about 23%

Rafale lost about 45%, and killed 50% of the enemy fighters and about 8% of the FB. Rafale did significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18E and Gripen (version unspecified) in terms of kills, and VERY much better than those types when it came to losses.

On another slide, Typhoon was shown losing one aircraft, killing 5.5 of the enemy fighters, and two of the fighter bombers (representing a 7:1 exchange ratio), while F-15E lost two, killed 4.5 fighters and one FB, representing 2:1. Rafale clearly did better than F-15E.

thank you, but I’m not interested by marketing virtual reality. :rolleyes:
I prefer real exercices with real aircrafts, with genuine weapon systems not feeded with imaginary data for half of the participants.

Most industry professionals take JOUST (and later simulations) seriously – indeed it was validated by Rand.

Interestingly, EF GmbH (not BAE) are still using JOUST results and analysis in briefings and presentations. Laurie Hilditch (head of requirements capture) used it in a presentation to journalists on 9 December in Munich, for example. My source tells me that not one of those journos (who included at least one French writer) batted an eyelid, and none questioned its validity.

Sure, now that they have finally replaced the 15 years old power point slide where the rafale get its pathetic 1:1 kill ratio in BVR by this one …

… nobody (even the french) is complaining 😀

And again, I’ve nothing against JOUST, But I will never accept how Bae (i insist) used it (ie ranking fighters using biased data) to please the british tax payer and smear the rafale BVR capabilities by twisting the real purpose of this simulation tool (ie, Evaluating and asserting the operational relevance of various typhoon weapon systems for BVR combat)