You said it. Triangulation. Probably if you have some Rafales flying towards the target from another angle, they could all use stadimetric ranging, then use the link 16 to share their range data and get a more accurate range (a sort of middle value between the Rafales. 1 sees 40km, another sees 43km, another sees 50km, the medium becomes 44km). Integrate that with a possible Spectra track and you get even closer to the real value.

And if you have the radar beam turned off, there’s plenty of processing power to run these fancy programs 🙂

About the Link 16 targetting hand-off mentioned in that Flight Int article Arthuro linked, it specifically said: “the first [Rafale] using electronic support measures to monitor the target and communicate its track via Link 16 datalink to the second [shooter] Rafale”. I’m pretty certain that wording means the “tracking” Rafale wasn’t using radar, but only Spectra – I think it’s likely a radar track passed thru L16 wouldn’t need an additional laser rangefinder… And perhaps fed enough Spectra data from multiple D-linked Rafales, even Spectra data may be sufficient to forgo the laser RF…?

And correct me if I’m wrong on this, but even assuming a laser RF is used and detected by the opponent’s LWR, that doesn’t give the opponent directionality, much less range (though it let’s them know they might as well turn on their radar). Though I’d assume any technique allowing laser directionality to be inferred from a one-point intercept would be extremely desirable for this reason…

But I definitely like the 6 Mica air-air load… It just seems a false economy in a certain sense to equip short-range-only dogfight missiles, that although cheaper than Mica, displace pylons and require you to enter range where you’re on equal footing with your opponent (assuming signifigant opposition who will have HMS + HOBS). Obviously using Mica as a dogfight missile is much less efficient cost-wise, but the idea is that you CAN do so if forced to, but don’t have to compromise your # of BVR shots with dedicated dogfight missiles. Losing a plane & pilot is much more expensive than a Mica, and entering dogfight range with an opponent who’s not completely out-classed seems like odds I’d prefer to avoid completely.

I agree an IR version of Meteor, or better, a dual IR/EM seeker (/Ladar?) would be very effective.
I wonder how feasible SatCom is at Mach 2-5 to replace detectable/ localizable mid-course updates?

Local Indian licenced production of AASM kits (or thru local Sagem subsidiary) seems like it would be an interesting proposition. It would likely reduce the cost, enough to make broader adoption on multiple platforms (even Russian) more attractive, which would further increase economies of scale. Same for JDAM of course.

I don’t know if this is at all in the cards, though…

Why are they continuing production of the PSA thru 2011, when AESA is now the standard for all exports?

I assume this is for the remainder of the current batch (not including the 2 or 3 w/ AESA) and already paid/contracted for, but if AESA is production-ready (as it seems from the export offer), why not just update the contract? …Since all these PSA RBE-2’s being produced out to 2011 will need to be upgraded anyways, building them as AESA to begin with can only save money, right?

I’m just not quite sure of the logic here… The “Economic Stimulus” deficit spending seems to be quite available for other defense projects,
AND it would seem to save money long-term by removing the need for an upgrade, so why not update the contract?

That’s pretty much my take also, Aspis…
Even if the government had it’s act together, pushing thru the fighter deal now instead of expending their effort on realistic measures to deal with Greek economy would not seem to be the best election strategy even if HAF has more popular support relative to other states.

I agree that the options are:
A) Eurofighter + more EF later B) Rafale + more Rafale later and (weakest) C) F-16 now + ??? later.
I don’t really see the perspective for dropping the European engagement and going for F-16 + JSF when Turkey will assumedly get more JSF sooner… In any case, the maintenance cost/time for US Stealth platforms continues to look atrocious. Given Greece’s numbers disadvantage vs. Turkey, high availability is doubly important, and money for RAM maintenance could be spent maintaining next-gen AEW platforms easily capable of handling JSF.

The high-thrust Rafale seems 99% a certain thing for UAE, so shouldn’t be an issue… For HMS, since it’s a de jure requirement of the contest, I’m pretty certain even Dassault :rolleyes: includes it in their bid. If Thales/Safran HMS are not plug-and-play right now, the Israeli system would likely be cheaper and faster to integrate (it seems they function by different rules for integration). Iris-T is obviously a manner of wills by the parties involved – If it were an actual requirement like HMS, perhaps Dassault would be certain to take it more seriously…???

Re: Turkey, the irrational adventurism of their Military Complex is certainly the biggest problem to ‘peace’, even though the Turkish public seems as averse to any war-mongering as the Greek public (if anything, the Turkish Generals’ best friend Israel seems to be less popular than Greece.) Unfortunately, the more desperate the Kemalists/Deep State feel, the more likely they are to try a stunt… 🙁 Even with that, engaging with the Reform Party government there (and civil society generally) is obviously the best path towards a normal relationship, however the EU process goes for Turkey – And IMO, AKP would seem to have the least attachment (of ‘mainstream’ parties) to the chain of Ottoman identification, compared to the military, which seems to be the basic problem in achieving ‘normal’ relations with Greece. I hope eventually Turkey can come to a point where some sort of arms-limitation treaty like West & USSR achieved during Cold War would allow both sides to normalize on more of a real peace-time footing and put more of their resources towards human development.

I wonder whether in Dassault, the decision makers ever think of such things. Probably not. After all, there MUST be a reason on why they still can’t get a contract.

There’s something to that… :rolleyes:

About Eurofighter, the biggest problem at the moment is the partner nations themselves, Britain especially seeking ‘flexibility’ on their commited purchases and Tranche 3 in the air because of it, even before one considers the radar. I actually think EF/Captor’s proposed hybrid mech/AESA would be superior (at high angles) to RBE2-AESA, but it’s fairly certain Captor-E needs signifigantly more development than RBE2 at this point. (The last time HAF got their hands on Rafale it may still have had PESA, but AESA is in production for France now and the Swiss apparently tried it also, so Typhoon is definitely behind there… )

I think it’s reasonable that if Greece picks Rafale F4+HMS, for Thales’ GaN AESA to be available by 2015 or so, in the timeframe JSF is delivered to Turkey (without GaN unless budgets and schedules are to be totally destroyed). Given Captor-E and Tranche 3 is in a holding pattern for the moment, their migration to GaN (which will happen) seems likely to lag just for budget reasons (doubly since half the EF partners are interested in JSF, pinching funds for Typhoon upgrades/purchases), just when JSF is being deployed by Turkey.

Ordering Tranche 2 now because Eurofighter is in chaos, and upgrading later to AESA seems a waste of Greece’s money. But who knows? Maybe there could be an F2 ‘loaner’ until F3 is available so Greece doesn’t need to upgrade… In any case, I don’t think Typhoon’s higher thrust is really much of an issue: There is the higher thrust engine available on Rafale if necessary, but if they opt for Rafale, I honestly think HAF will make the same choice as France, and save on fuel/engine life.

re: Eurobonds, of course it only saves about 1-2% on financing… That amount of money could trivially be found by selling off state owned land or similar measures. I really think the value is lending more confidence NOW in the bonds of Greece and particularly other countries much worse off, by the mere fact that Germany/ECB is publicly contemplating such moves. I agree cutting military imports is a smarter solution if times are really that tough for Greece. Realistically, I don’t think Greece need be worried by Turkey in the immediate future in terms of a real war erupting – the factors about EU mentioned with Cyprus play into that. Greece is more interested in maintaining overall long-term deterrance with Turkey, so that in the future if they feel the temperature is rising, they won’t be starting from scratch.

Again, thanks for your perspective Aspis.
I think we’re really of the same mind on the topic (how boring!)

Realistically, Dassault needs to realize that if Greece purchases Rafale NOW (domestic issues/elections possibly interfering with a timely contract, but giving Dassault more time to get their package together), they are almost certain to purchase more at some point down the line, like whenever Thales puts out their GaN AESA (2015?). So eating short term profits if necessary (like EADS did with Austria) and making sure that any “shortcomings” ARE addressed, is clearly in their interest, not the least that current sales are practically certain to mean future upgrades as well.

My main point was that Greece SHOULDN’T be forced to cover Iris-T certification by itself… How sympathetic the Iris-T consortium might be towards Dassault in this matter is unclear, as is how Dassault may factor Brasil/India/UAE into their economic justification, but the short-term Dassault profits should not take precedence over longer-term solidifying of their platform. Independent initiative from Dassault (separate from France/AdA) is obviously key here… And obviously this isn’t standard procedure for any airframer. (Dassault now holding 20% of Thales might be relevant if there’s further movement between Thales/Saab/Diehl, including the Iris-T portfolio in a missile consortium outside MBDA, letting Thales own two “race horses”.)

It’s pretty obvious that Greece would LIKE Rafale to work out, Dassault just needs to present them with a solution that makes the French engagement work: A ‘sympathetic’ comprehensive approach to financing (by France), enabling both Rafale purchase (new or upgrading of F1s already built?) and M2K upgrades to Dash-5, is such a solution. How is helping a signifigant customer/partner solidify on your most recent and next most recent platforms a bad business decision? Likewise, Dassault isn’t really building M2K anymore: Facilitating UAE off-loading their Dash-5 if Greece wants them (per their option you mention) in addition to Rafales is a win-win scenario (rather, win-win-win for France/Greece/UAE).

Back to the topic (A-Darter), given the announced Brasil-SA cooperation on Darter, it will be interesting to see the outcome of India and Brasil’s fighter selection. Darter will obviously be intregrated on Gripen, but Rafale looks to have decent chances in both Brasil and India… Whether or not SA and Brasil are interested in India joining the project as a partner, it may be a good customer.

I also think that while immediate prospects for Rooivalk in Brasil are small (their generals seem more interested in nuclear subs), in the medium term there is scope for a cooperative evolutionary/upgraded version that would be productive for both sides (Brasil would be playing off cooperation with both Eurocopter and Denel). New armaments or counter-measure suites would be upgrades that would also advance Brasil’s development capabilities.